Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Mr. Speaker: Order. As all the private Bills have blocking motions, I shall, with the leave of the House, deal with them in a single group.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

C-POULTRY COMPANY LIMITED BILL (By Order)

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

HARROGATE STRAY BILL (By Order)

LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

PLYMOUTH MARINE EVENTS BASE BILL (By Order)

SCARBOROUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

STREATHAM PARK CEMETERY BILL (By Order)

YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 28 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Medium-term Financial Strategy

Mr. Bell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to achieve his targets as regards sustainable growth and jobs, as set out in the medium-term financial strategy.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): Output has been growing steadily for the best part of four years and employment has been rising since the first quarter of 1983. With inflation under control, those trends are expected to continue.

Mr. Bell: The nation will not recognise the picture that the Chancellor of the Exchequer painted. Does he agree

that output has not yet reached the level of 1979 when the Labour Government left office? Does he agree that the medium-term financial strategy had three elements: the conquest of inflation, sustainable growth, and job creation? Is it not a fact that they are mutually exclusive, that he has not conquered inflation, or achieved sustainable growth, and that he cannot create jobs? When will the Chancellor tell the House that he is abandoning the medium-term financial strategy?

Mr. Lawson: From someone who is normally as well informed as the hon. Gentleman, I have never heard so many errors in a single question. First, output, far from not having reached the 1979 peak, exceeded the 1979 peak in 1983, went still higher in 1984, and is expected to go higher still in 1985. The latest figures for employment published only yesterday show that during the 18 months to September 1984 there was an increase of about 480,000. That is a substantial increase, in which an increase in self-employment has played a large part. My right hon. and hon. Friends will be glad to know that. Far from the conquest of inflation being incompatible with a healthy economy, growth and more jobs, it is one of the essential elements in the foundation for more jobs, although there are also other elements.

Mr. Forman: While I welcome the Government's record since 1981 in boosting both output and employment, does my right hon. Friend believe that there is a place now for treating the public sector borrowing requirement calculation on an oil-adjusted basis?

Mr. Lawson: I read with great interest the pamphlet written and published by my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). Many adjustments must be made to the PSBR in different directions to decide on an appropriate level. Those adjustments were all made. The factors were all taken into account when the last medium-term financial strategy was published in March 1984.

Mr. Wainwright: Since the Chancellor recently published a careful study of the effect on the number of jobs of lower employment costs, will he tell the House approximately how many new jobs he reckons will have resulted from the abolition of the national insurance surcharge last year?

Mr. Lawson: It is extremely difficult to put a figure on that, but the same factor would broadly apply as applied in the Treasury paper, that is, the 1 per cent. lower level of real earnings would over time be expected to result in between 110,000 and 220,000 additional jobs.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in the light of the world recession and the decades of industrial decline that preceded this Government's tenure of office, his financial strategy is working well in the national economic interest? Will he acknowledge the great role being played by new and small businesses in the creation of jobs within the economy? Furthermore, will he have regard to the wishes of my constituents that that should be taken into account in the forthcoming Budget?

Mr. Lawson: I always take my hon. Friend's representations very carefully into account when framing my Budget.

Imports

Mr. Cowans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any estimate of the impact of (a) tax cuts and (b) public sector construction spending on imports.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): It would be misleading to look at tax and expenditure decisions solely in terms of their relative import content. What matters is whether tax or expenditure decisions will contribute towards improved economic performance.

Mr. Cowans: Has the Minister read the input and output tables of the Department of Trade and Industry, which show conclusively that public sector construction is less import intensive than tax cuts? Will he now at last treat jobs as the main priority instead of putting forward his own pet theories?

Mr. Rees: Any addition to disposable income will go on imports, and that is true of higher wages as well as of additional income due to tax cuts. If the hon. Gentleman is consistent in his view, he is presumably also opposed to wage increases on the ground that they, too, suck in imports.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is not only tax cuts that have an effect on the economy, and that the Government are right not to set themselves a harsh target on the value of the pound, as many of the things that have happened have been very helpful to manufacturing industry, which in turn helps to strengthen the economy? Anyone who thinks that having a set target for the pound helps this country just does not understand the facts of economic life.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is quite right. The export opportunities to, for example, the United States are enormous at present. Hon. Members will know that, even disregarding oil, the volume of exports rose by 9·5 per cent. in 1984 to reach an all-time high.

Infrastructure

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received concerning the need for more public spending on the infrastructure.

Mr. Peter Rees: Several.

Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister has already accepted that tax cuts will not necessarily create jobs, but does he realise that there is evidence to show that money spent on the infrastructure would create two and a half times as many jobs as money spent in tax cuts? Will he accept that public spending is a necessary part of job creation?

Mr. Rees: I certainly accept that public spending can create jobs, but if the hon. Lady reflects for a moment she will realise that economies, such as the economy of Japan, which carry a low rate of public expenditure and a low tax burden are performing rather well, and are therefore creating more jobs.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: When considering public expenditure on the infrastructure, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the return produced thereby? The last thing that we want is more fiascos like that of the Humber bridge, which act as a drain on the economy and destroy jobs in the long term?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Capital projects are bound to be looked at on an individual basis. There can be no absolutely correct level of capital expenditure on infrastructure projects. Each project must be looked at on a case-by-case basis to see whether it is likely to yield a proper return.

Dr. McDonald: Is the Minister aware that capital investment has fallen as a proportion of gross domestic product from an average of 19 per cent. under Labour to an average of 17 per cent. over the past four years? Is he further aware that Britain is now at the bottom of the investment league of major industrial countries? Is it not high time that he listened to the voices of industry, the unions and Members of Parliament of both parties and stepped up investment in our decaying infrastructure in order to provide real jobs and to make our economy more efficient?

Mr. Rees: If the hon. Lady was not mesmerised by the public sector—we all know her penchant for an East European economy — she would realise that capital investment is running at an all-time high.

Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House that if our public sector borrowing requirement were increased to provide more infrastructure investment it would put an added strain on the nation's finances, since the national debt costs taxpayers about £17 billion a year to service? Consequently, does he agree that anybody asking for increased public expenditure must realise that it would put further strain on taxpayers?

Mr. Rees: I accept my hon. Friend's analysis. He appreciates, just as I and other Government Members do, that by giving more scope for manoeuvre in the private sector we are creating scope for investment in that sector which can make for a more effective economy.

Mr. Donald Stewart: If, as is alleged, the main sewers are collapsing in all our main cities, does that not take care of all the dogmatic theories on both sides of the House?

Mr. Rees: I have to confess that I cannot talk with authority about the main sewers in Portree on the Isle of Skye, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that nearly £1 billion of public investment will be spent on water and sewerage services in 1985–86.

Capital Investment

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures available for the levels of capital investment in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lawson: Total fixed investment in the economy is reckoned to have reached about £55 billion in 1984, an all-time record in real terms. It is forecast to rise higher still this year.

Mr. Carlisle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the best indicators of the direction of the economy, of confidence in the future and of hope for jobs is the level of capital expenditure in manufacturing industry? What are the trends here?

Mr. Lawson: That certainly is one of a number of important indicators. My hon. Friend is right to refer to it. Provisional figures published today show that manufacturing investment increased by about 13 per cent. in real terms in 1984.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is not investment in manufacturing industries 30 per cent. less than it was when the last Labour Government left office?

Mr. Lawson: Investment in manufacturing is, indeed, less—although not by that amount—in real terms since 1979. Total business investment is at an all-time high. That is what the hon. Gentleman should take on board.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that one of the great modern delusions is that all public capital expenditure is labour intensive? Is that not far from the truth?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend, who speaks with great experience from a distinguished career in municipal government, is absolutely right.

Job Creation

Mr. Maxton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any estimate of the effect of a £1·5 billion income tax cut on the level of unemployment.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): Income tax cuts will encourage enterprise and effort, facilitate lower wage settlements, and help to provide the conditions for improved economic performance and a sustainable increase in employment.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister please answer the question and give his estimate of the number of people who will be taken off the unemployment queues as a result of tax cuts? Does he agree that talk about incentives when 4 million people are unemployed is an insult to the unemployed, since they want work but it is not available? They are not shy of work. Would it not be better to put the money back into public capital expenditure instead of giving it away to the rich?

Mr. Moore: The weakness in our economy is not a lack of demand or a lack of public expenditure. Our weakness relates to our inability to compete effectively with foreigners in domestic and international markets. Tax cuts will help not only to stimulate enterprise and effort but to encourage lower wage settlements and to make our economy more competitive.

Mr. McCrindle: If a substantial part of the £1·5 billion were used to reduce the cost of employment by reducing further employers' national insurance payments, is it not arguable that that would have a better effect on unemployment than capital investment or reduction of personal taxation?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has argued that point before, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have heard his question. I am sure that my hon. Friend is pleased that, in the past five or six years, employer costs as a percentage of total taxation have decreased from 14 plus per cent. to 9 per cent. That shows the Government's recognition of the burden.

Dr. Bray: Although Treasury Ministers are quite mistaken in thinking that income tax cuts are the most effective means of stimulating employment, does the Financial Secretary, within his own terms of reference, agree with the Institute of Fiscal Studies that the worst way to improve incentives is to raise thresholds?

Mr. Moore: No, I do not agree with that suggestion. It has an attractive simplicity and I understand some of the

points that the institute makes. Bearing in mind our exceptionally low thresholds, I thought that it was common ground that they always merit attention. I shall draw what the hon. Gentleman said to the attention of my right hon. Friend, who was listening carefully.

Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that but for the miners' strike we would be looking forward to much larger tax deductions in the Budget and therefore a much greater effect on employment? Will my hon. Friend remind taxpayers that if the Labour party had not given Arthur Scargill such solid support they would have more money in their pockets?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right to the extent that our gross domestic product grew by 2·5 per cent. last year —something more than 1 per cent. less than it might have grown. The strike has clearly had a significant impact on my right hon. Friend's ability to carry forward our policies. I hope that all hon. Members want there to be an end to this unnecessary dispute.

Mr. Terry Davis: How many jobs will arise from using £1·5 billion to cut taxes? Does the Minister not know, or is he refusing to tell us?

Mr. Moore: The simplicity that is evident in the hon. Gentleman's question sometimes makes me despair. To the extent to which the economy suffers from supply side difficulties, as opposed to demand difficulties, any attempt to reduce the taxation burden will increase job opportunities. Simple analysis of mathematical models fails to understand how supply side effects are improved by competition through tax cuts. Failure to understand that is at the base of the Opposition's inability to understand the Government's economic policies.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Duffy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any revisions to the estimates for the overshoot of public spending above targets contained in the recent public expenditure White Paper.

Mr. Peter Rees: An updated estimate of the public expenditure planning total outturn for 1984–85 will be published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

Mr. Duffy: At least the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not made his perennial boast about holding spending in real terms. Presumably he now knows that hardly anyone believes him. Moreover, he continues to threaten us with cuts in spending programmes which might have boosted wealth to fund a social security bill which is the direct result of the Government's failure to generate jobs. Contrary to what the Financial Secretary has just said, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we want, not clamps on labour costs and price tags on public assets, but a sharp increase in spending power, which will increase wealth and jobs?

Mr. Rees: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Tynebridge (Mr. Cowans) suggested that increased spending would suck in imports. Sustainable jobs will be created by the policy being pursued by the Government, not by a meretricious increase in spending on uncosted capital projects.

Mr. Stern: In the light of recent debates on water charges and local authority housing expenditure, does my


right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who call most stridently for increased public spending are often those who are most reluctant to find means to pay for it?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was evident in some of our debates—for example, on the increase in water charges, which will open the way to increased capital investment by the water authorities of nearly £1 billion next year.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury explain to us how he expects the external financing of the nationalised industries to be reduced by £3 billion over the next three years? When the Government last expressed optimism in 1980 they expected it to be reduced by £2 billion, but it never was. Why is the Chief Secretary more optimistic now than he was then?

Mr. Rees: It seems to have escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that we have moved rather sharply out of the recession. It will also have escaped his attention that the nationalised industries are getting a rather firmer control over costs than they had before 1979.

Mr. Hickmet: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend what he believes are the prospects for public expenditure overshoots on local authority expenditure and what effect he believes the present levels of local authority spending have upon job prospects and the economy as a whole?

Mr. Peter Rees: We believe that firm control of public expenditure is an important element in the Government's strategy and that that is the way to create sustainable long-term jobs. On my hon. Friend's precise question about local authority current spending, the Government have improved the control mechanisms. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is a firm supporter of rate capping. Rate capping will operate on the 18 authorities which account for about 70 per cent. of the local authority overspend.

Economic Growth

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the growth rate of the economy in the last 12 months.

Mr. Moore: By the middle of this year our economy will have achieved four consecutive years of growth. The duration of the recovery will then be longer than any since 1945.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister explain to my constitutents why he is so pleased with those figures? If the pound has responded by going down, thus forcing inflation to start rising again, it masks a fall in industrial production. What figures does the Minister believe have to be achieved before unemployment starts to fall?

Mr. Moore: I should have thought that the whole House, whatever its legitimate concern about the long-term problem of tackling unemployment, would welcome the fact that we are in the middle of four years of recovery. As the hon. Gentleman is worried about our manufacturing capability, I hope that he will not only remember the words of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few moments ago about manufacturing investment being up by 13 per cent. in 1984, but that he will be interested in the fact that in 1984 manufacturing export volume was up by 11 per cent.—another piece of what I hope the hon. Gentleman thinks is good news.

Mr. Yeo: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the level of real interest rates is higher now than it has been, on average, for some time? Does he agree, therefore, that one of the most desirable forms of stimulus to the British economy would be a Budget which enabled real interest rates to be significantly reduced in the coming months?

Mr. Moore: The rate of real interest rates reflects one of the features of the last five years—the reduction of inflation. Obviously I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the budgetary recommendations of my hon. Friend, but what most industrialists and business men want, and what would add most to long-term employment, is a further reduction of inflation and the opportunity in wage settlements for our country to be competitive in terms of international wage unit costs.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Does the Chancellor realise that the imposition of further taxation on the tobacco industry will seriously affect jobs in that long suffering sector and the economy of the country as a whole?

Mr. Moore: I commend the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has been able to make a budgetary representation to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer by means of that question.

Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that one action that the Government could take to relieve unemployment would be the complete abolition of wages councils?

Mr. Moore: I am not quite sure how that fits as a budgetary representation, but I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends to that recommendation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How are discussions developing on the package of incentives for small businesses and the community programme that was commented upon a few weeks ago in the leader columns of the Sunday newspapers? Is it true that the Chancellor is under pressure from his own Back Benchers to introduce such a package, and will he make sure that if it is introduced it includes a substantial increase in the number of places made available under the community programme, because that would create real employment in areas such as mine?

Mr. Moore: I could not begin to comment on newspaper speculation, but I draw the hon. Member's attention to the major achievements in the small business sector over past years, especially the radical reduction in the corporation tax rate to 30 per cent.—a record low in the whole of the Western world.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of financing the miners' strike is a burden on the money markets, and that capital investment is not helped if there is a Scargill surcharge on mortgage payments?

Mr. Moore: There is no way in which industrial disputes of the kind that we are going through at the moment can in any way help our country's economic development. I am sure that all those who wish to see a reduction in unemployment, and a return to the kind of growth pattern that might have developed last year without the strike, would wish to see this unnecessary dispute ended.

Mr. Wainwright: To remove one of the obstacles to economic growth and to assist business confidence, will


the Government take advantage of the present favourable opportunity to open negotiations with a view to Britain joining the exchange rate mechanisms of the European monetary system?

Mr. Moore: I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that point. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the Government's position on that issue clear last Question Time, and that position has not changed since.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the factors restraining the economy is that the state is still far too much engaged in industry? Will he accordingly introduce plans to denationalise the gas, water and electricity industries, in order to release a large amount of money into the economy?

Mr. Moore: I have a distinct feeling that my hon. Friend's suggestion is somewhat wide of the question, but he is absolutely right in recognising the Government's privatisation programme as a key element in revitalising the economy.

Mr. Blair: Is not industry now paying about £1,000 million per year more for the cost of borrowing because of high interest rates? Are not real interest rates now the highest that they have ever been, under a Government who said that they should be judged by their achievement of low real interest rates? When will the Minister tell the House that those real interest rates will come down?

Mr. Moore: As I said earlier, in the last five years industry has seen a reduction in the burden of taxation relative to total taxation, from 14 per cent. of all taxes to 9 per cent. now. That is a significant achievement, which helps industry. I am sure that the hon. Member will help in further assisting industry by ensuring that pay settlements reflect productivity increases, instead of having the kind of pattern that has made our wage unit costs so unattractive in competitive terms.

Manufacturing Output

Mr. Hunter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest statistics for United Kingdom manufacturing output; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lawson: Manufacturing output is estimated to have risen by some 3½ per cent. in 1984. This is the largest percentage increase in any year since 1973.

Mr. Hunter: I duly acknowledge and warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but, bearing in mind that opponents of the Government sometimes try to argue that such an increase from a relatively low baseline is fairly easily achieved, will he comment on any underlying trends or indications which suggest that that growth is sustainable?

Mr. Lawson: The growth is certainly sustainable; indeed, I am confident that it will be sustained, provided that the Government stick firmly, as they will, to the medium-term financial strategy.

Mr. Canavan: Why is our trade in manufactured goods now in deficit for the first time since the Industrial Revolution?

Mr. Lawson: I should have thought that the hon. Member, coming from a constituency in Scotland, would

at least have heard of North sea oil and would realise that if there is to be a large surplus—as there is—on our oil account in the balance of payments, there is bound to be a corresponding deficit in regard to trade in manufactured goods.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Hannam: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has recently received from disability organisations on the imposition of value added tax on building alterations.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Over 100 from disabled individuals and their organisations.

Mr. Hannam: Is my hon. Friend aware that last year's extension of VAT to house adaptations has added a vast amount to the VAT bills faced by charities? Is he also aware that the system of relief for adaptations for the disabled is causing great confusion and anomalies? Will he remove them by extending relief to all household adaptations for the disabled?

Mr. Hayhoe: I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. He will recognise that last year special reliefs were given and at that time I said that the main objection to the proposal he has now made was revenue costs. The facts remain the same this year as last year.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that after the last budget the Jewish Blind Society had an extra VAT bill of £100,000, the Spastics Society one of £120,000 and the Royal National Institute for the Blind one of £100,000? The result was that their work in the service of severely disabled people was adversely affected. Is this not an intolerable way to treat the voluntary sector?

Mr. Hayhoe: I met the representatives of the Charities VAT Reform Group and points along the lines of those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were made at that meeting. One has to see this in the broader context of the very significant concessions within the tax system made available to charities and the very substantial grants that are made by the Government to charities.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend recognise that many charities undertake responsibilities which would otherwise be a direct and full charge upon the public purse? Will he therefore reconsider his policy with a view to putting in place a tax regime for charities that is coherent and systematically supportive of charities?

Mr. Hayhoe: The points made by my hon. Friend are those contained in the representations that the Chancellor has received from the Charities VAT Reform Group and, as has been indicated to that group, they will be given careful consideration.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the Minister agree that VAT on a vital alteration in a building for disabled people represents a tax on disability?

Mr. Hayhoe: No, I do not think that I would accept that proposition.

Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree that the continued imposition of VAT on charities runs directly counter to the other helpful measures which the Government have tried to introduce in support of their wish for a partnership with the voluntary sector?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not think that there is any question of trying to introduce—very substantial concessions and advantages have been introduced by this Government.

Mr. Ashley: Does the Minister recognise that the Treasury has been less than charitable to charitable organisations which are trying to carry out these adaptations for disable people? Why is he quibbling over a very tiny cost that could help many people in great hardship, especially when we know that the Chancellor is accumulating £1·5 million to give away in tax cuts?

Mr. Hayhoe: I do not think that "quibbling" is the right judgment to apply to the debates we had last year on that matter, and I was referring back to them. With regard to this year, it would, of course, be quite improper for me to seek to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement. I again assert that the Government have done a great deal to help charities, particularly those dealing with the disabled.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Minister reflect on the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who is surely right? Many disabled people need building alterations to cope with their disability. This is surely a tax on disability.

Mr. Hayhoe: When one takes account of the relief that was given in the last Budget in connection with building operations for facilitating access to buildings by the handicapped, and of the special zero rating of the first-time installation of a bathroom, washroom or lavatory for a handicapped person in his own home, one sees that very considerable relief was afforded to the disabled in the last Budget.

Job Creation

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made any calculation of the impact of the recent public expenditure White Paper on unemployment.

Mr. Peter Rees: The Government's public expenditure plans are an integral part of their policies to encourage a vigorous and enterprising economy and, thus, the conditions for sustainable growth of jobs.

Mr. Lamond: Does the Minister realise that he is speaking against a background of growing unemployment, including another 1,000 men placed on the unemployment register in my constituency in Oldham, and that, despite the welter of statistics with which he tries to mislead the country, outside this building there are 4 million people, who are not statistics, who are unemployed, and to whom his boast of an expanding economy rings very hollow indeed?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the background against which I gave my answer. There was an increase in jobs of 389,000 between the third quarter of 1983 and the third quarter of 1984.

Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that unemployment in the construction industry could be reduced significantly if development land tax was amended significantly? Does he agree also that the cost of collecting this pernicious tax exceeds the net revenue that is enjoyed from it?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend's second proposition is not correct. As for prospects of abolishing or curtailing the tax, my hon. Friend will have to wait for 19 March.

Mr. Ron Brown: If things are on the up and up, as is alleged, why is it that Rowntree Mackintosh is closing its profitable factory in Edinburgh? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer that question?

Mr. Rees: No, because I am not answerable for Rowntree Mackintosh.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, irrespective of what the White Paper may say, if workers continue to ask for more money than the value of the goods they produce they will put more and more people out of work? Would it be an idea for the teaching profession to learn that as well?

Mr. Rees: I am sure that the House will accept my hon. Friend's analysis. I hope that the lesson is learnt by the trade union movement.

Mr. Terry Davis: Will the reduction of £1 billion in spending on construction next year compared with expenditure in the previous year result in more, or fewer, jobs?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman, like his hon. Friends, is focusing on the public sector. He should consider housing starts in the private sector.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Fisher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has revised his forecast of the total tax take from North sea oil in the light of exchange rate and oil price movements that have occurred since the Autumn Statement.

Mr. Moore: The latest forecasts of North sea tax revenues will be published on Budget day.

Mr. Fisher: Is it not a fact that, since the Autumn Statement, the pound has fallen 12 cents against the dollar? In the light of Treasury Ministers telling the Select Committee that each cent. is worth about £150 million more in oil revenues for Britain, that means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has about £1·8 billion of manoeuvre for his Budget statement. Will he use that money to create jobs in industry and not waste it as he has wasted it before?

Mr. Moore: It is important to remind the House of what was said by Treasury Ministers and the chief economic adviser at the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. When asked about calculations, the chief economic adviser said:
to achieve a systematic set of calculations right across the board you have to specify rather precisely quite a lot of assumptions about whether one is speaking of a particular bilateral rate, or whether one is speaking about the effective rate and in turn what effects you think that would have upon world commodity prices, and particularly upon oil prices, the impact upon the inflation rate etc.
The chief economic adviser was trying to point out the danger of the simplistic trap into which the hon. Gentleman has sought to lead us. He should recognise the other implications for oil price and exchange rate changes.

Mr. Malone: Does my hon. Friend agree that the tax take from the North sea will be vital in the long term for Britain's economy? Is it not absurd that the Leader of the


Opposition has announced that it is his policy to take and retain controls over North sea oil development? This will prejudice development in the North sea and eventually the tax take from it.

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. The tax revenue system, as he will know from his Scottish experience, is extremely important. He will know also, from the Autumn Statement, that revenues expected in the current fiscal year amount to £12 billion. It is forecast in the Autumn Statement that revenues in 1985–86 will be a similar £12 billion. North sea oil is an important national asset, and my hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to the fact that it will, we trust, continue to produce good results for the nation for many significant years.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Caborn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received regarding the imposition of value added tax on newspapers.

Mr. Hayhoe: Over 2,000 representations about the imposition of VAT on books, newspapers and periodicals.

Mr. Caborn: Has the Minister considered the Price Waterhouse report, commissioned by the Newspaper Society, which suggests that the imposition of VAT in this area could result in the loss of 7,000 jobs and over 100 titles? Is this part of the budget for jobs?

Mr. Hayhoe: The Price Waterhouse report referred to by the hon. Gentleman is one of the many representations and pieces of information that have been received and are being considered.

Mr. Dykes: In view of the representations received, does my hon. Friend agree that to impose VAT on the cover price of local newspapers would be a crippling blow to many of them?

Mr. Hayhoe: I have met representatives from the Newspaper Society, who have made their case with considerable strength.

Mr. Barron: With regard to the likelihood of VAT being imposed on newspapers, has the Treasury considered what will happen to local free newspapers which rely solely on revenue from advertising and provide a good service for their communities? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they will be unable to pass on costs to their customers because they are free sheets? Is he aware that this service may fold up?

Mr. Hayhoe: As I said, representations have been received across the board. I met representatives of the Association of Free Newspapers, who again have made the case for free newspapers with considerable vigour.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Nicholls: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is paying an official visit to the United States.

Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm, in regard to limited list prescribing, that it is and always has been the Government's intention that a full and comprehensive list of drugs should be available for all National Health Service patients, irrespective of their ability to pay? Will he, therefore, condemn the disreputable behaviour of a small minority of doctors who have grossly misrepresented the Government's proposals and in so doing have caused their patients, particularly their elderly patients, acute anguish and distress?

Mr. Biffen: I can confirm that it has always been the intention that the list should be comprehensive and well judged. I agree that there has been a good deal of public misapprehension about what is intended. I very much hope that that problem will be resolved when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services makes a statement later this afternoon.

Mr. James Hamilton: When the right hon. Lady comes back from America, will the Leader of the House ask her to visit Strathclyde region, where half of the male population who are unemployed and drawing benefit have been unemployed for over a year, where 40 per cent. of them have actually been unemployed for over two years and where 40 per cent. of the women between the ages of 30 and 59 have also been unemployed for over two years? Is it not time that the Prime Minister paid a visit to the region to see at first hand the effects of her economic policy?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend is undoubtedly sufficiently seized of the problems of unemployment not to need to visit any particular part of the United Kingdom to realise that it is a substantial and widespread difficulty. In that context, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will at least take some solace from the latest figures of the Department of Employment, which show that the number employed is rising, and rising quite well.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cockeram.

Mr. Cockeram: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the figures—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question No. 2.

Mr. Cockeram: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cockeram: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the figures to which he referred in his reply to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton)? Is it not remarkable that the number of people in work has risen by over one third of a million in the last 12 months? Is not this the other side of the coin to the number joining the unemployment register and seeking work, which of course includes married women?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is right in the point that he has made. Without doubt, a study of the register demonstrates the importance of the self-employed in our economy and, therefore, of economic policies designed to encourage their interests.

Ms. Harman: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, or deny, that I am being subjected to political snooping by


MI5? If I am, will he arrange for me to see a copy of my file? Is it not the case that such snooping is outside the guidelines, since information gathered on me clearly has nothing to do with national security?

Mr. Biffen: If it is of any interest to the House, I am in absolutely no position to comment upon what may have been the situation of the hon. Lady. She will know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary confirmed on 7 February what has been the practice of successive Governments, that it was never the practice in cases of individuals where telephone tapping was alleged either to confirm or deny that interception had taken place.

Q3. Mr. Ward: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. Friend urge our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to study carefully the representations made by Poole borough council on Sunday trading? May we have an early assurance that action will be taken to clear up the collection of anomalies that exist at the moment?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the representations of Poole council will be among the many that will be assessed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Indeed, the House will wish to assess them when it, in turn, debates the Auld report. My hon. Friend will recollect that that matter was considered in private Members' time in the last Parliament, and on that occasion a sharp division of opinion was revealed.

Mr. Bell: I take on board the earlier responses of the Leader of the House, but can he remind the Prime Minister, on her return from Washington, of her written promise to me to visit Teesside in the lifetime of this Parliament? Will he further remind the Prime Minister that 1,000 jobs were lost in the first 10 days of the year and that there is nothing like personal experience of unemployment to chasten the mind and change the Government's policies?

Mr. Biffen: I say particularly in the context of the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) that a visit to Teesside, no less than a visit to Scotland, is a pleasurable prospect. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Gentleman's point. On the wider issue of unemployment, I go back to the answer that I have given hitherto. I believe that it is the Government's policies that will ultimately provide the basis for a recovery in employment, and there is some harbinger of that in the figures for those who are actually in work.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are press reports that the United Kingdom may make a bid to have the 1992 Olympic Games in this country? Is he further aware that there are other places in

this country than London? Does he appreciate that somewhere north of Watford is an area known as the north-west, where we have some of the finest sporting facilities in the country? Does my right hon. Friend not think that Manchester would be a splendid venue for the 1992 Olympic Games?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. Friend says, championing the claims of Manchester. The appropriate action would be for the city to make its cause favoured by the British Olympic Association. I suggest that as the course that my hon. Friend should follow. I should also like to make this observation. By the time we come towards the casting of the Olympic Games, I believe that some authorities in England will be happy to declare themselves Olympic-free zones.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is the British Government's policy in no way to support American backing for the Contras against Nicaragua? Will he make sure that that point is made clear by the Prime Minister to President Reagan during her present visit?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the Prime Minister will make the most clear and explicit statements promoting the British national interest in the Caribbean, and that they will not be lost on the American regime.

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the executive of the National Union of Mineworkers has utterly isolated itself, not only from the Coal Board, but from nearly half — probably more — of its own membership and the leadership of the British trade union movement? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that it is about time that the Labour party condemned the strike and appealed, together with us in the Conservative party, for a return to work as soon as possible?

Mr. Biffen: The House will be aware that the Secretary of State for Energy will answer a private notice question on that matter in a few moments. I should like to respond to my hon. Friend by saying that I believe that Mr. Scargill has no hope whatsoever of securing victory, but he has a very real prospect of dividing his union.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that another construction can be put on the toings and froings between the TUC, the Government and the Coal Board? Many members of the NUM and others believe that the TUC was hoodwinked by the Prime Minister and that the liaison committee, headed by Norman Willis, came back with a deal that was infinitely worse than the one the week before.

Mr. Biffen: I cannot join the hon. Gentleman in delivering so magisterial a rebuke to the TUC — one which alleged, above all, that it displayed the cardinal crime of innocence when in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I do not think that Ray Buckton is hoodwinking material. This instance demonstrates the intransigence of Arthur Scargill and the reason why, from


the very outset, it has never been possible to come to a reasonable and working arrangement to terminate the strike.

Mr. Loyden: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Loyden: Will the Leader of the House urge the Prime Minister, when she returns, to clarify the position of members of the Transport and General Workers Union working at the Ministry of Defence who have been dismissed? The reason for dismissal given to Mrs. Balkinson and other women was that their security screening clearance had run out. The decision taken by the contractors might be a reason for the dismissal. The trade union movement has been unable to obtain a clear answer from the Government. May we take it that this is part of the post-Ponting hysteria that prevails at the Ministry of Defence? Will the right hon. Gentleman press for this matter to be cleared up as soon as possible?

Mr. Biffen: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice that he would raise this question. I understand that the matter is now before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is apprised of the question when she returns from the United States.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the greatest scar and scab on this nation is Arthur Scargill? Does my right hon. Friend remember that 10 months ago I advised the house that Scargill was a Marxist surrounded by Communists and supported by the Kremlin? Does my right hon. Friend accept that we know that Scargill is a Marxist surrounded by Communists and that Russian money is coming into his grubby little hands?

Mr. Biffen: I think that the whole House realises that Mr. Arthur Scargill is possessed of a wide range of formidable qualities, many of which were covered by my hon. Friend's question. What the House is entitled to know, and what doubtless will be revealed when we come to the private notice question, is how many hon. Members remain in the Arthur Scargill fan club.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is wide public concern about Government threats to employees' pension schemes in companies and to the state

earnings-related pension scheme? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Government will not undermine the employees' occupational pension schemes either by changes in taxation or by DHSS proposals for portable pensions? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the specific statement made by the Prime Minister during the general election campaign—that there are no plans to change the earnings-related component of the state pension — still defines the Government's position?

Mr. Biffen: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the earnings-related scheme is covered by one of the reviews now being undertaken by my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman, together with the rest of us, will have to wait to learn the consequences of the review.
On the taxation of pensions, the right hon. Gentleman knows that he makes comments that invite a judgment upon the Budget. First, he addressed the wrong person; and, secondly, he asked his questions at the wrong time, as they are just ahead of the Budget. He should take a lesson in patience and, in the best Asquithian sense, wait and see.

Mr. Kinnock: On occupational pensions, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to convey to his right hon. Friend that it is a pension scheme, which in every respect has been worked for and paid for by people in this country, and they must not be let down for any reason, including the taxation convenience of the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the inquiry would cover the earnings-related scheme, yet his right hon. Friend said that the aim of setting up the inquiry was not to call into question the fundamental pension structure established in the 1970s. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, with or without the inquiry, there will be no disadvantageous changes in the state earnings-related pension scheme?

Mr. Biffen: No, I must say quite clearly—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why is the Secretary of State for Energy telling the right hon. Gentleman what to say?

Mr. Biffen: I shall provide National Health spectacles for the hon. Gentleman if he thinks that I am seeking to get a message from my left hand side.
I shall not stand at this Box and say anything that prejudices either the Budget considerations or the outcome of the pension reviews now being conducted by my right hon. Friend.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Tony Benn(by private notice): asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the mining dispute following the decision of the National Union of Mineworkers' executive yesterday.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): Mr. Norman Willis, on behalf of the TUC, held a series of discussions with the chairman of the National Coal Board. As a result of those discussions, proposals were prepared by the board which expressed the basis upon which an agreement could be reached on the main issues of the dispute. Those proposals took account of the views Mr. Willis had expressed to the board. Over the weekend, the TUC showed that paper to the NUM executive, which asked for amendments to be made.
The National Coal Board confirmed to the TUC that this was its final paper. The TUC then requested a meeting with the Prime Minister. The TUC confirmed to the Prime Minister that the proposals under discussion would, if agreed to, constitute the final agreement on all of the matters with which they dealt, and that they were not a document which would be an agenda or form the basis of any further negotiations on these issues.
The TUC explained to the Prime Minister that it had a number of difficulties with the document, and my right hon. Friend undertook that I would convey its views to the National Coal Board. That was done, and subsequently the seven TUC leaders asked to have further talks with me before they met the National Coal Board. During those talks I clarified the Government's desire to see that the new NACODS procedures were brought into operation as speedily as possible, and that it was the National Coal Board's intention that they would be in place by the time they were needed. I explained that neither the board nor the Government could accept a position where, if the NUM refused to agree to the detail of the independent body, no review procedures would exist because that might have the effect of the NUM being able to frustrate any reasonable plans for closure. The document was therefore amended to express the desire of all parties to see that the new procedures were in operation by 1 June, which would be well in time for any disputed closure to be referred to the independent body.
The document was further reordered to meet the NUM's anxiety that its sequence as originally drafted could have implied that disputed closures would take place prior to going through the proper procedures. A reordering of the document made it perfectly clear that a disputed closure would take place only at the end of the agreed procedures.
I share the TUC's disappointment that the NUM executive has rejected the proposals which had been made. The NUM executive has now rejected proposals in seven rounds of talks, the compromise proposal put forward by ACAS and the proposals prepared following discussions between the TUC and the National Coal Board.
I deplore the fact that the generous and reasonable offers now available to miners continue to be rejected by the NUM executive. Those coalfields which originally balloted voted overwhelmingly against strike action. I can only urge those miners still on strike, though deprived of

a ballot, to return swiftly to normal working so that the damage being done to their industry, their families and their communities can come to an end.

Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement entirely fails to explain how the executive and delegate conference of the NUM unanimously rejected conditions which were much worse than the ones discussed over the weekend? Is he also aware that the leadership of Arthur Scargill, Peter Heathfield and Mick McGahey—the subject of unfavourable comment in the House—has throughout earned the unanimous support of the executive and the delegate conference?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the NUM executive is, and remains, ready to meet for discussions without preconditions, but that after the enormous sacrifices made by the miners, two thirds of whom are still on strike—87 per cent. of those who have ever been on strike are still on strike—it is not prepared to accept the 13 per cent. cut in its industry which Mr. Michael Eaton announced on television? Is he also aware that the public is beginning to understand that the Government planned, financed and sustained the strike, and now want it to continue, and that that, among many other reasons, is why there is a substantial fall in the Government's popularity as well as in the value of the pound?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks are a gross insult to seven leading trade union leaders. For the executive of the NUM to say that not just Mr. Norman Willis, but people like Moss Evans, David Basnett, Ray Buckton and Bill Keys went back with a document which was worse than the one they took last Sunday is a total criticism of those trade union leaders. No one could look at those documents and say that this was a much worse proposal.
As to the support for the three NUM leaders mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, they are the only NUM leaders in history who have divided their union from top to bottom.

Mr. Andy Stewart: It is a personal disappointment that the talks have broken down, and my right hon. Friend has told us why. However, those miners who have been working since the strike began are becoming highly agitated by the fact that their outstanding pay award has not been implemented. Has my right hon. Friend any contingency plans for talking to them?

Mr. Walker: This is obviously a matter for the National Coal Board. The figures which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) gave about the number of miners now at work are totally and completely inaccurate. In fact, within the next few days I expect more than half the NUM membership to be at work. The other two unions are at work. Yesterday, Mr. Vincent rushed out of the meeting and gleefully said, "We rejected all the proposals". When he said "We", he forgot that in his own area 83 per cent. of NUM members are at work.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the Secretary of State confirm that substantial concessions have been made by the NUM, including acceptance of the modified colliery review procedure agreed at ACAS between the NCB and NACODS last October? That was reaffirmed this morning. Therefore, the misunderstanding which has arisen over the NCB document — it is not a TUC document—could be resolved by immediate direct talks


between the full NUM executive and the NCB. Did not the TUC also attempt to facilitate those direct talks? Therefore, instead of insisting that there will be no further talks, will the Secretary of State facilitate such a meeting so that a negotiated settlement can be agreed and this damaging and painful dispute brought to an end?

Mr. Walker: I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Coal Board has said — with the Government's full support—that there will be no further talks on the main issues in the document. The reason why there will be no further talks is that the Trades Union Congress came to the National Coal Board, had a series of talks, returned suggesting further amendments, which were made, sat at No. 10, and all seven TUC leaders confirmed that this agreement would not be subject to further negotiation. The Government and the Coal Board stick to that position.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that Mr. Willis was hoodwinked? Does he agree that many thousands of ordinary decent working miners have been hoodwinked by Mr. Scargill and his cronies into supporting what is now exposed as a political, not an industrial, strike? Does he agree that the solution is in their hands, and that they should return to work?

Mr. Walker: We know that the Left wing of Labour party politics is currently conducting a campaign against Mr. Willis. It was not just Mr. Willis but a wide range of trade union leaders, from left and right of the spectrum, who took the decisions. We must be clear that anyone who makes accusations about hoodwinking makes them against seven of the top trade union leaders in the United Kingdom.
On the question of who has been led astray, I remind the House that for the first time in living memory miners were deprived of a ballot. They were then subject to mob picketing, never previously witnessed in this country. The tragedy is that, although the best offer has been made since nationalisation, miners' families and mining communities have suffered more than at any time since the war.

Dr. David Owen: Does the Secretary of State agree that the policy of continuous negotiation and of dribbling out concessions has probably extended the strike? Does he agree that there is a strong likelihood that the strike will come to an end more quickly if there is a clear pause in negotiations?

Mr. Walker: At the time of the ACAS compromise proposal it was perfectly reasonable for the Coal Board to say that there was no point in having further talks with Mr. Scargill. The board said that until Mr. Scargill confirmed that he was willing to accept the reality that uneconomic pits must face the prospect of closure there was no point in having further negotiations. Recently, at the request of the TUC, further negotiations have taken place. Mr. Scargill slapped the TUC in the face in the same way that he slapped ACAS in the face. As far as I am concerned, talks about the issues dealt with in the document have come to an end.

Mr. David Madel: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been a genuine and sustained effort by Mr. Willis and the TUC to help to solve the dispute, and that once again Mr. Scargill and his

supporters are out of line with TUC thinking and the way in which industrial relations in the coal industry should be conducted?

Mr. Walker: The seven trade union leaders in the TUC group made a detailed examination. Anyone who objectively studies the documents now available will recognise that it is lunacy not to obtain a settlement based on them.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Will the Secretary of State explain to the House the role of Michael Eaton in the dispute, who last weekend made statements about negotiations that were taking place in London when he was in Yorkshire? Will the right hon. Gentleman further explain why he has not used his office to bring both sides of the dispute to the table and to chair a meeting so that sensible face-to-face negotiations may take place instead of little lads scurrying to and fro with letters? Will the right hon. Gentleman now come to his senses and allow negotiations to take place?

Mr. Walker: I can only say that talks have taken place across the table between the two parties on seven occasions and after every.meeting Mr. Scargill's boast has been that he has not moved an inch. I am not sure which "little lads" the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but if he is referring to the seven trade union leaders who have done their best during this past week, I find that a rather strange comment.

Mr. Francis Maude: As the NUM executive has made it quite plain that it is not prepared to make any concessions whatever, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that there is now no basis on which talks can proceed, and that the only hope of ending the strike lies in a continued return to work?

Mr. Walker: With regard to the crux issues which are dealt with in the document, the NCB has made its final position clear. That has been rejected by the NUM executive. Until the executive accepts those proposals, I fear that the strike must go on. But it is in the interests of the industry that every striking miner should recognise that he will serve his industry best by returning immediately to work.

Mr. Allen McKay: Is the Secretary of State aware that Geoff Kirk, who had been at the NCB since 1947 and who had advised every chairman, and Ned Smith, the chief negotiator, who had been at the NCB since 1947 and who had advised every chairman, have left the board? Is it not a fact that they said that they could no longer stomach what the board, Ian MacGregor and the Government were doing to the miners and the mining industry?

Mr. Walker: What the board was offering in terms of pay, investment, early retirement programmes and businesses for mining communities was better than anything offered by any previous National Coal Board or under any Labour Government.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: How many more coal faces can the NCB afford to lose as a result of the strike before it is forced, even against its wishes, to withdraw the offer now on the table?

Mr. Walker: The situation is already serious in that 38 working faces have been lost during the dispute. Thus there has been a serious deterioration in the industry's capacity. Unfortunately, many of those faces were in pits


that had a good future. Miners must recognise that if the strike continues for much longer considerable damage will be done to their prospects.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Does the Secretary of State realise that the 130,000 miners who are still on strike will take great comfort from the fact that the decision of the NUM executive to reject the document was unanimous? While he is checking his figures, will he bear in mind that 70 per cent. of the Scottish miners are on strike, 90 per cent. of the Yorkshire miners are on strike and that 98 per cent. of the South Wales miners are on strike? Despite the documents that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to, this strike will not be over until every one of the 600 miners sacked during the dispute is reinstated and walks back through the pit gates with their colleagues.

Mr. Walker: Given the hon. Gentleman's interest in statistics, I am sure that he would like to know first that 78 per cent. of the miners in the colliery in his constituency are working. I only hope that he goes and listens to them. His figures are totally wrong. The hon. Gentleman is just clinging to the hope that the militant Left who organised this strike has some possibility of surviving. I am glad to say that it has lost this strike. It has done great damage to the Labour party and is now damaging the TUC; but, above all, it has damaged the miners.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is it not clear that from the start of the dispute Scargill has been much more interested in play acting the British Lenin than in ensuring the well-being of NUM members? Is it not now time to stop just urging those on strike to go back to work? Should we not lay it on the line and say that if the strike continues for much longer we shall not be able to continue with the generous offers that are on the table and that mines will have to start to close?

Mr. Walker: I am certain that miners recognise fully the damage that is being done to machinery, to coal faces and to the prospects for their local communities. I believe that many miners have remained out for a range of reasons, including a strong loyalty to the union. I hope that they now recognise, particularly after the events of this week, that loyalty should not apply only to the present leadership of their union.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that many Members on the Opposition Benches make a sharp distinction between the mass of the miners and the leadership of the NUM? Nevertheless, will the right hon. Gentleman understand that the mass of moderate miners throughout the country are deeply disturbed by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that £4·5 billion, which the strike has cost, is a very good investment from the Government's view? The Prime Minister has talked about "the enemy within"—meaning the miners—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Minister had better understand that moderate miners believe that. They are frightened by statements of very senior Ministers. Will the right hon. Gentleman, who is much more moderate in these matters than his leader, go back to Mr. Willis and see whether he and Mr. Willis can have one more try to solve this serious and damaging dispute in which there can be no winners?

Mr. Walker: In the speech by the Prime Minister to which the hon. Gentleman referred she made the same distinction as he makes between the present leaderhip of the NUM and the miners. She made it clear that she thought that the enemy was not ordinary, decent miners, but the manner in which part of the leadership operates.
Whatever the cost of the dispute, it was the Chancellor who agreed to a massive investment programme for the years to come in the industry, for hundreds of millions of pounds to pay for generous early retirement provisions and for millions of pounds to be spent on a new enterprise company to bring new jobs to mining communities. When one examines the reality of the Government's performance, there can be no doubt that they have made the most generous offers to the miners since nationalisation. Mr. Willis has shown great patience and was willing to work hard with his colleagues. I am afraid that it was not Mr. Willis who brought the talks to an end, but the NUM executive.

Mr. Roger King: Bearing in mind that Mr. Buckton was one of the magnificent seven of the TUC, is it not time that he went back to his railwaymen and started the coal trains moving again?

Mr. Walker: There is not much need; they are all moving.

Mr. John Ryman: Is it not extraordinary that throughout the dispute the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have repeatedly shirked their responsibilities on the pretext that the dispute is between management and trade unions and that they have refused to intervene since the strike started? Will the right hon. Gentleman now say whether he is prepared to intervene and to use his good will to initiate further negotiations between the unions and the NCB?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the jobs of other industrial workers, such as machine tool workers in the west midlands, are far from safe and that they would give their right arms for such an offer?

Mr. Walker: Yes. One of the things upon which I reflected as I spoke for several hours to the seven trade union leaders in my office was that none of them had had an offer for their union like that made to the miners.

Mr. Peter Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, whether he likes it or not, in a democracy miners have the right to withdraw their labour and to go back when they have a settlement? The right hon. Gentleman believes that the offer is generous, but obviously the miners do not accept the terms. Does he accept that the country needs the coal and to have the miners back at work? There might have been several discussions to date, but no direct discussions have taken place with the third party involved—the Government, who have the power and the responsibility and could, with a positive attitude to the dispute, resolve it. Why do not the Government call the two sides together and resolve the dispute?

Mr. Walker: The two sides have met seven times. On one, they both went to ACAS, which is generally accepted as a genuine machinery for arbitration. ACAS made a compromise proposal which the NCB accepted and the


NUM rejected. More recently, to the knowledge of the NUM, with the NUM discussing amendments to the document, the TUC has attempted to bring about a solution but has been rejected. The only conclusion that the House should come to is that we are dealing with an NUM leadership which has not been interested in a reasonable and sensible settlement. Our view is now shared by 47 per cent. of NUM members who are at work, and I believe that it will be accepted by many more.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 83 per cent. of miners in my constituency are at work and that the pit at which they work is working near normally and is in profit? Is he also aware that they strongly welcome the efforts that the Government have made in an attempt to bring about an honourable settlement? Does he agree that it is only justice to those men who are working that those who persist in refusing to work must be served notice to quit as they clearly do not want jobs?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir; I do not believe that it would be in any way justified to give notices to quit. When miners consider the basis of what is on offer, its fairness and how the TUC has tried to intervene to their benefit, I believe that they will return to work. I shall have no part in saying that, at any given moment, miners, who might have been kept out by all sorts of intimidation, should be dismissed because they have stayed out. As for the numbers who have returned to work, I am pleased to hear the figures for my hon. Friend's constituency, but in north Nottinghamshire, 95 per cent. are back at work, in the south midlands, 80 per cent. are back. In the western area, 82 per cent. are back and in north Derbyshire, 76 per cent. are back. The pattern is being copied all over the country.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the Secretary of State stop attempting to mislead the House and make a proper statement about the document that was rejected by the NUM conference today, as it is not that the TUC recommended acceptance of it at the weekend? The document is nothing more than the NCB's and the Government's bottom line, and they want preconditions. The Secretary of State should be a bit more honest and state the facts. He is saying that there are no more negotiations and accepting preconditions, which many trade union leaders have said that it is nonsense for anyone ever to accept.

Mr. Walker: I repeat that seven trade union leaders said categorically at 10 Downing street that the document would be an agreement, not a point on an agenda or for further discussions. If the hon. Gentleman is accusing anyone of deception, he is accusing seven distinguished trade union leaders.

Mr. Rob Hayward: My right hon. Friend has identified the position as adopted by the leaders of the TUC, the position as adopted by the NCB and the position as adopted by the Government. Has he at any stage during the past 24 hours received a declaration of the position as adopted by the leadership of the Opposition?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State spend a little time reflecting on what he has said? Is he saying that his prescription is to sit in the trenches and wait until the men go back to work and, in effect, declare their disloyalty to their union, thus breaking

it? Is that what he wants? Ninety-nine per cent. of my miners are still out on strike and will not break their loyalty, not to Mr. Scargill, not to a personality, but to their trade union. The right hon. Gentleman ought to reflect upon what he said and call together the two parties directly involved and live up to his office as Secretary of State.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman ought to reflect upon what he has said—that because the miners in his constituency have a great loyalty not to Mr. Scargill but to their union they will not break that loyalty. However, the miners are also saying that until Mr. Scargill, as the leader of the union, is satisfied that his demands will be met they will stay on strike. There is no way in which Mr. Scargill's absurd and extreme demands will be met.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Does not the Secretary of State owe it to the House to tell it what is in his mind about his future actions, which may or may not harm relationships in the mining communities? The Secretary of State said on the radio this morning that if 51 per cent. of the miners go back to work that will not be a magic number. Can he tell us what is the magic number which would trigger off action by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Walker: I believe that it is very important for the whole House to encourage miners to return to normal working as quickly as possible. I am sure that the board would be willing and eager to put into operation the very generous offers that it has made to the miners. I hope that the NUM executive will reflect upon that fact and will quickly accept the very good offers that are available.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the refusal by Arthur Scargill and the National Union of Mineworkers to accept the proposals of the Trades Union Congress come as no surprise whatsoever, in view of the fact that Arthur Scargill set out not to preserve and save the remaining pits that are still in operation but to attempt to bring down the Government?

Mr. Walker: While I cannot speak for the motives of Mr. Scargill, I can say that his actions have done great damage to miners, mining families and mining communities.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the reason why some of us believe that the TUC delegation was hoodwinked was that when the matter was put to the national executive committee every member, including the miners' leaders in those areas that have been working since the strike began, voted to reject the deal? Every one of them said that the deal was worse than the deal of the previous week.
Will the Secretary of State also bear in mind that, although he seems to be cock-a-hoop about miners returning to work, he ought to look at the area that I represent where miners have returned to work? The fact is that 30 per cent. of the miners are still on strike and coal is costing as much as £200 a tonne to mine. The Government and the National Coal Board have to pay the wages not only of the managers and deputies but of the working miners. Instead of coal being mined at the average cost of £38 per tonne which obtained before the strike, even in those areas where only 30 per cent. of the miners came out on strike it is costing five times as much to mine coal.
The Secretary of State ought to be ashamed of himself. He is forcing the taxpayer to foot this bill for the rest of the strike.

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned it, I shall give the figure for his constituency. The fact is that 90·7 per cent. of the miners there are at work. I accept that that is not true of the whole of north Derbyshire because the hon. Gentleman does not have the same influence over the rest of the area.
On the cost of coal, I can only say that the result of this strike, called without a ballot, is that markets have been lost instead of markets having been gained. If during the past year we had put into the industry the capital investment that was available, we should be gaining new markets and producing cheaper coal in the interests of miners.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business of next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Motion on the Rate Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order.
Motion on the annual report of the European Court of Auditors for 1983.
TUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY — Completion of remaining stages of the Water (Fluoridation) Bill
Motion on the British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order.
WEDNESDAY 27 FEBRUARY — Opposition Day (8th Allotted Day) (First Part). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on local authority capital expenditure.
Afterwards, completion of remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill.
THURSDAY 28 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Companies Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords] and proceedings on the Companies Bill [Lords], the Company Securities (Insider Dealings) Bill [Lords] and the Business Names Bill [Lords] which are consolidation measures.
FRIDAY I MARCH—Private Members' motions. MONDAY 4 MARCH—There will be a debate on a motion to take note of the Government's expenditure plans 1985–86, Cmnd. 9428.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Easter Adjournment on Thursday 4 April until Monday 15 April.

[Debate on Court of Auditors' Report for 1983 on 25 February 1985

Document

OJ No. C348 Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors for the financial year 1983.

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 5—ix (1984–85), para. 4.]

Mr. Kinnock: First, may I thank the Leader of the House for giving to the House the dates of the Easter Adjournment? May I also offer him my personal thanks for ensuring that the debate on Welsh affairs is to be taken so near to St. David's Day? Dialch yn fawr. Finally, may I also thank the Leader of the House for agreeing to hold a debate on Monday week on the public expenditure White Paper, a debate for which we have been pressing for some weeks? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how it can be appropriate to debate the Rate Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order next week when the matter is still before the courts? If the information upon the rate-capping decision is to be given to one council and is now to be given to the courts, surely that information ought to be given to Parliament before any debate on the order takes place.
May I renew my request to the Government to provide time for an urgent debate on Britain's immigration laws, especially in view of the very disturbing evidence from the Commission for Racial Equality in its report which was published last week? Will the Leader of the House arrange


for a statement to be made early next week on the very serious allegations that were made against the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence in the "20:20 Vision" television programme which was withdrawn last night by the Independent Broadcasting Authority? Finally, in view of the statement yesterday by the Prime Minister to the United States Congress in which she expressed her eagerness for British participation in star wars research, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a debate takes place as quickly as possible on this issue so that hon. Members can expose the dangers and delusions of such participation?

Mr. Biffen: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments upon the timing of the Welsh debate. I acknowledge his few words in Welsh which, although not comprehended, I am certain were well intended. I, like the right hon. Gentleman, am glad that we shall be able to have a debate upon the Government's public expenditure plans and that it will take place well ahead of the Budget. As for a debate on the Rate Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order, I think that the matter which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind refers to the precepting capacity of the Greater London council. This was the subject of the previous order, not of the order that will be debated on Monday next. However, I acknowledge that in a sense there is commonality between the two. Perhaps we may consider through the usual channels whether there might be a debate on the immigration regulations. Again I note the right hon. Gentleman's concern about what was highlighted in the "20:20 Vision" television programme. I acknowledge the importance that the right hon. Gentleman attaches to his request for a statement. Perhaps we may also look at that matter through the usual channels. Star wars research will, I think, be a matter of continuing political controversy. I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said as an opening shot.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to early-day motion 174—
[That this House calls for an increase in the resources devoted to the Overseas Services of the BBC and notes with interest the possibility of an experimental BBC Overseas Television Service.]—
which calls attention to the desirability of increasing the resources made available to the overseas services of the BBC and, by an amendment standing in my name and those of other hon. Members, the resources of the British Council:
[At end add "and also believes that an increase in national resources devoted to the British Council would improve Great Britain's influence and prestige in the world, and be beneficial to the interests of this country."]?
In view of the nearness of the Budget and the finalising of the Estimates, can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope of a debate before the Budget?

Mr. Biffen: I have to say, in all candour, that the chances are slim. Let me try to compensate by saying that I recognise the importance of the topicality of the matter. As my hon. Friend is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, that adds even more importance to its consideration.

Mr. John Cartwright: May I reinforce the request for the House to be given an early chance to debate the issues raised by the Channel 4 programme on

MI5's official secrets, banned by the IBA last night? When former long-service MI5 employees are prepared to state publicly that the secret services have broken their rules by mounting clandestine operations against organisations and individuals who pose no conceivable threat to state security, is that not an issue that this House should have an opportunity to debate at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's question and I am certain that the anxiety that he expresses extends to all parts of the House, but I cannot go beyond the answer that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to consider the implications of the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill having been given a Second Reading by such a substantial majority? Will he agree with me that, while it was entirely right that the Government should have adopted a neutral attitude to the Bill until the will of the House was made known, now that the will of the House has been made known in such overwhelming terms, it would be appropriate for the Government to ensure that sufficient time is given for that Bill, so that the will of the majority cannot be thwarted by a small minority of people using parliamentary procedures to that end?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend might like to reconsider the proposition that the neutrality of the Government should be balanced by the Government making time available. I do not think that that is how the House would regard neutrality.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that anyone who saw the programme on Channel 4 last night, to which reference has been made, must have considerable concern over the way that MI5 operates, and must ask whether MI5 is now out of ministerial control?
Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that either the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary will make a statement to the House next week? Will the Attorney-General also give an assurance that in no circumstances will the person interviewed in the television programme, a former employee of MI5, be prosecuted under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act?

Mr. Biffen: I gave a measured reply to the Leader of the Opposition and I refer the hon. Gentleman to that. But as the hon. Gentleman raised the wider issue of the Attorney-General giving an assurance, I shall make that point known to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. David Crouch: Notwithstanding what the House might be hearing later this afternoon on the question of the limited list of drugs, may I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it will not be sufficient for this House to consider the matter by the negative resolution procedure? Will he promise us a whole day's debate on the subject in due course?

Mr. Biffen: I note the strength of interest that my hon. Friend has in the matter and I shall bear it in mind, but I would mislead the House if at this stage I held out a likely prospect of a full day's debate.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is the Leader of the House aware of the difficulties that are created for Select Committees when Members who leave


them are not replaced quickly enough? Is he aware that for some months now the Select Committee on Social Services has been two members short, one from each side of the House? It is a very serious disadvantage to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) raised the same matter last week. When may we expect some action to remedy the inconvenience?

Mr. Biffen: It is a matter of seriousness. Attempts are being made, through our own sort of Westminster ACAS, to see whether the difficulties can be resolved. It requires patience, and I hope that eventually I shall not strain the patience of the House.

Sir Dudley Smith: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch)? Is he aware that the limited list of drugs is a matter of intense public interest? While we may not expect a full day's debate, we should at least have half a day — and it should take place in prime time and not in the small hours of the morning.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes his case twice as attractive by asking for half as much time, and that must be merely the starting point of the consideration. I have told the House that I recognise that there are strong feelings on the topic, but I have to have regard to all the other competing claims. It is in the context of the House having to vote upon a resolution, and I shall take account of the representations.

Mr. Tony Benn: In view of the statement by the Secretary of State for Energy this afternoon that the Government are not prepared to contemplate any further talks of any sort or kind designed to resolve the mining dispute, is the Leader of the House intending that the matter should be brought back to the House so that Members of Parliament can interrogate the Government about their policy as the strike enters its second year—and particularly as the Government will know, from the tapping of Arthur Scargill's telephone, the wide support that he has among his own members?

Mr. Biffen: I take account of what the right hon. Gentleman says. No time is provided for next week, as he will appreciate. He will also appreciate that the Government do not have the monopoly of opportunity to enable the subject to be debated, but obviously I shall keep the matter under consideration.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the publication by the Common Market Commission of its reasoned opinion that Britain is breaking Common Market law by not charging VAT on bus and rail fares and on electricity and gas supplies, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Government to make a statement next week on whether they will oppose the measure all the way, when a decision will be arrived at, and what the consequences would be for the Revenue, particularly in view of the horrific impact that the imposition of VAT would have on areas that are dependent on bus and rail travel?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that there is an innocent and constructive content in my hon. Friend's request. [Interruption.] I have not laughed at all. I think that my

first task must be to refer my hon. Friend's request to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we shall see how we can take it from there.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Does the Leader of the House believe that pressure for a debate on the limited prescribing of drugs should come only from Conservative Members? May I, from the Opposition Benches, reinforce the point that there is a serious issue of principle involved in the alteration of doctors' contracts, which is apparently being imposed by order? Would it not be important to debate on the Floor of the House changes in clinical freedom, which may or may not be beneficial?

Mr. Biffen: I think we shall have to see how the resolutions are likely to be drawn in judging how wide a debate can be expected, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Rather than having a debate on the report by the Commission for Racial Equality, I wonder whether it would be more appropriate to have a debate on the Commission itself. Although well intentioned, and probably set up in the best circumstances, this body seems to have become somewhat one-sided. That has in part led to the naive report that it has produced which, instead of helping race relations, is rather damaging to them. I am sure also that my right hon. Friend is mindful of the public expenditure connections of the Commission for Racial Equality.

Mr. Biffen: I am surprised that any hon. Member who wanted to debate the Commission should find the fact that a report of the Commission is to be debated in some way an insuperable inhibition. I ask my hon. Friend to live up to his known reputation in these matters, and then there will be no difficulty.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: My understanding is that servants of the House are not permitted to make money out of any memoirs that they might wish to compile. Would it not be to the advantage of Parliament if the relevant body of the House were to examine the need to refrain future Speakers, who are primarily servants of the House, from such ego trips? Might we then not prevent the misrepresentations and the settlement of old scores indulged in by that malicious old maid Tonypandy?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a criticism of a Member of the other House. I think that the hon. Gentleman must withdraw those comments. [Interruption.] Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the adjectives — "malicious" and so on.

Mr. Faulds: I have every wish to comply with your requirements, Mr. Speaker, and I want to stay in the House. I shall, of course, withdraw the word "malicious", relevant as it is in this context. However, I have to maintain that there has been considerable misrepresentation in his stories of what the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. All I required was that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw those adjectives, and he has done so.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend take note that of great public interest is the increase in television licence fees? It is time that there was a debate in the House on the whole question of the funding of the BBC for the public to hear. That is of paramount importance. Time is gradually slipping away, despite the


fact that we first asked for the debate over three months ago. It is not a suitable subject for an Adjournment debate or private Member's motion on a Friday, but needs to take place during the week.

Mr. Biffen: I take note of my hon. Friend's comments. He is referring to a problem that is commanding growing interest and I shall certainly refer his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I represent a rate-capped authority and therefore he would expect me to try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye next Monday. In the light of his previous answer on this question, is he aware that I usually try to do my homework on these matters and that it is impossible for me, because of the GLC position, to prepare an adequate case on behalf of my borough? Will he therefore reconsider the possibility of having that debate at a time when we can deal with the matter adequately in the best traditions of the House?

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry to hear of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has encountered, but I cannot believe that they are insuperable for the preparation of the formidable case which I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman will make on Monday.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is possible that the statement shortly to be made on the question of drugs will be entirely acceptable to the House, it is also possible that it will not be? That being so, as the negative resolution obliges us all either to accept or to reject, will he suggest to the Secretary of State that he bring forward draft regulations so that he can consider what the House says before laying final regulations?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon.. Friend is in his place and will have heard that suggestion. No doubt, if my hon. Friend is successful in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, following the statement by my right hon. Friend, he will be able to repeat that suggestion.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May my hon. Friends and I invite the Leader of the House and all hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches to Committee Room 11 this evening at 7 pm to watch the film by "20:20 Vision", which was banned by the IBA yesterday and which millions of people in the country want to see?

Mr. Biffen: It is always nice to have these chummy invitations across the Floor of the House. I must confess that it is rather short notice, but it is a kind thought and I shall think about it.

Dr. Alan Glyn: In view of the historic importance of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to the United States, may we influence the Leader of the House to get her to make a statement next week?

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly draw that request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. James Lamond: The Leader of the House, in referring to the question about star wars, said that it was a continuing affair. I can certainly testify to the fact that requests for a debate or even a statement about Britain' s position in peace talks is

a continuing matter, having asked about this for months, if not years, in the past. Since the Prime Minister made it the cornerstone of her speech in trying to ingratiate herself with the American Congress, does that not mean that we should have a debate about star wars and our position in the talks in Stockholm, which have been going on for over a year now without a single word being said about them, either in a statement or in a debate, at the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to remind us of his pioneering role in this controversy. I suggest that at least as an opening shot in the next stage he might like to use the advantages that are offered by defence questions next Tuesday.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 403?
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to take the necessary steps to become a full member of the European monetary system without further delay.]
In view of the growing number of signatures attached to it and the fact that the Select Committee on EEC Legislation has specifically recommended a debate in the House on the subject, will he now seriously consider having a proper debate, not just after 10 o'clock, on Britian becoming a full member of the European monetary system, bearing in mind the overwhelming virtues and merits of so doing now that the pound sterling has fallen to a level where that policy could be tenable?

Mr. Biffen: The case may have been irrevocably flawed by being endorsed by the CBI, but I leave that to one side. It is a very lively topic which has growing significance as we approach the time of the Budget and I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that suggestion.

Mr. Richard Caborn: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion No. 414?
[That this House wishes to register its grave concern at the South African police operation on the morning of 19th February involving the arrest of the leadership of the United Democratic Front; and urges Her Majesty's Government to recall Her Majesty's Ambassador in South Africa for immediate consultations.]
This concerns the arrest of members of the United Democratic Front in South Africa. Is he prepared to get the Government to make a statement? I am led to believe that there has been a delegation this morning to the Ministers at the Foreign Office, who have, to say the least, shown some disquiet about the situation there. It has now been raised at the European level and again disquiet is shown about the problems of South Africa. While it refers to only one incident, the whole question of Crossroads and the other problems in South Africa could well be something of a powder keg. Could I ask, therefore, that the Government make a statement next week similar to the statements that have been made by other member states of the European Community? This is an extremely important point and one that could develop in the next few weeks.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman indicates, at least, that concern is felt by the Foreign Office on this matter, and of course I will refer to it his request for a statement.

Mr. Ken Eastham: May I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that yesterday the Select Committee on Employment


published a document on the polygraph, which is a lie detector, in which grave reservations were expressed about the use of the instrument? May I remind him that this instrument is at the moment the subject of a pilot test at GCHQ? Considering all the humiliation and aggravation created at GCHQ, will the Leader of the House seriously consider an urgent debate on the report?

Mr. Biffen: I see the force of the argument that reports of the departmental Select Committees should be incorporated in the work of the House as far and as speedily as possible. I cannot think that there is an early prospect of a debate, but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the findings of the Committee.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: On 11 February the House debated regulations concerning hazardous materials. There is a major problem in the implementation of these regulations in that, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, it is still possible for warehouses storing non-hazardous materials to be converted without planning consent to store extremely dangerous materials. Since some of these installations are in very densely populated areas and since the Minister of State, Welsh Office has informed me that the Government intend to bring forward proposals to supplement sections 22 and 23 of the Act, will the Leader of the House bring some urgency to the situation so that we may avoid any major problem should a dangerous incident occur in this area?

Mr. Biffen: I will look into that matter and be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: The Leader of the House has more than once this afternoon resorted to the usual channels. Will he accept that, worthy as the usual channels may be, they work very slowly? Will he also accept that repetitions of requests for debate are probably the only weapons that we have? I therefore urge upon him the importance of having an early debate on the report by the Commission for Racial Equality, which has caused enormous concern throughout the country. If there is not an early debate, many people will believe that the Government have a great deal to hide.
May I press him further on the need for a debate on the "20:20 Vision" film on MI5's official secrets? The fact that he has not seen it may account for his rather lethargic—or perhaps I should say lackadaisical—attitude to the request for a debate. The film contains the most damaging indictment of what is being done by MI5, and breaches of guidelines and assurances that have been given by successive Ministers. It is not good enough to say that we might have a debate at some time or another. Individuals have been implicated; their telephones are being tapped and they have no chance to answer back, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). If the Leader of the House cannot see the film at 7 o'clock this evening, I can reassure him by saying that I shall put a video copy of the film into the Library so that he may see it at any time.

Mr. Biffen: I note that the hon. Gentleman is not optimistic about the prospects of a debate, otherwise he would not have made his speech now. I sought to reply to

the Leader of the Opposition on this issue in a way that I hoped would be helpful to the House. I think that it would be more constructive if I left the matter there.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the usual channels. A usual channel that is reinforced by him becomes an even more formidable proposition. I shall see what can be done about a debate on immigration laws.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has not been rising in his place previously but I shall call him if he will be brief.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House explain by a statement or otherwise next week how the Government come to organise their double standards on the continuation of talks with bodies that include the National Union of Mineworkers? Why is it, for instance, that the Government are prepared to talk and talk with the Common Market about the budget, despite—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be asking about business next week.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am asking about the making of a statement next week.
Why is it that the Government are prepared to continue to talk at length about international debt with bankers from countries throughout the world? Why is it that they are prepared to argue about peace talks—[interruption.] I am asking that there should be a statement about this next week. Why is it that the Government are prepared to send representatives to Geneva to take part in peace talks, even when the Russians walk out and the Americans walk out—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Why does not the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) walk out?

Mr. Skinner: Why are the Government prepared to hammer the miners in the way that they are doing while they are prepared to negotiate with member states in the Common Market and others elsewhere throughout the world?

Mr. Biffen: I think that the hon. Gentleman has had a bad day. He finds that he is light years away from the leadership of the TUC. He is in a bad way because, like many others, he has argued for months that the Government should be seeing the TUC—

Mr. Skinner: Not me.

Mr. Biffen: The Government have now seen the TUC and the Government have shown themselves so good at negotiating with the TUC that—

Mr. Skinner: That is a lie.

Mr. Biffen: —in the hon. Gentleman's words—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: I have never asked that question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover, even from a sedentary position, must not use the word "lie".

Mr. Skinner: Well, I have done and the Leader of the House should withdraw his comment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has had rather a good week. I believe that the House will agree that yesterday came into that category. I am asking


him now to withdraw his statement. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to withdraw the word "lie", I must ask him to leave the Chamber for the rest of today's sitting.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman said—

Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber for the rest of today's sitting.

The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.

Prime Minister's Question Time

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave you notice that I wished to raise a point of order arising out of Prime Minister's Question Time today. Prime Minister's questions today, as on virtually every other Tuesday and Thursday afternoon, consist of the first question being repeated ad nauseam. This is a matter that could be examined by the Procedure Committee. When my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) began with a supplementary question on rising to his feet, you, Mr. Speaker, said, "No. Question No. 2." My hon. Friend then had to say, "Question No. 2." My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had to rise and say, "I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave a short time ago." That was done five times today.
Do you have discretion, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that that procedure is not repeated five times during the course of Prime Minister's questions? If it did not happen, at least two other Members would have a chance of asking a question. If the first seven questions to the Prime Minister are identical and it is decided merely to call those following on supplementary questions, that would be fairer to those who do not presently get a chance.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I have that discretion. However, if the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this he should ask the Procedure Committee to consider it. When the Procedure Committee submits a recommendation, I shall consider it carefully.

Mr. James Lamond: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although there are dozens of questions on the Order Paper for the Prime Minister to answer that are exactly the same, there is one that is not, which has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) concerning Conqueror and the General Belgrano.

Mr. Speaker: It happens that today most of the questions to the Prime Minister on the Order Paper are open questions. I share the concern of many who feel that this use of the Order Paper is perhaps not the right way to list these questions. I think that the Procedure Committee should consider the matter before I do anything about it.

Limited List Prescribing

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the limited list of National Health Service drugs.
I told the House on 8 November that the Government intended to introduce a system under which a selected range of drugs would be available on the National Health Service in seven categories. These were: antacids; laxatives; analgesics for mild to moderate pain; cough and cold remedies; bitters and tonics; vitamins; and tranquillisers and sedatives. I published at that time a provisional list of medicines which might be selected within each category. This was the basis for consultation, which continued until the end of January. We made it clear from the outset that our intention was to produce a list from which doctors would still be able to meet all the clinical needs of their patients.
The chief medical officers of the health Departments wrote to all doctors individually to seek their views on the list. I am grateful to all the many doctors who responded and I hope they will recognise that their views have been taken into account. My chief medical officer also brought together a group of independent experts practising in the relevant medical specialities, including three general practitioners and a pharmacist, to assist him. That group has now unanimously recommended a list of medicines that it believes will meet all clinical needs. I have accepted its advice in full and I am most grateful for its help in this important task.
This extended list of medicines will contain some 100 different medicines, compared with 30 on the provisional list. Most of the medicines will be generic, or unbranded, products; but a number of proprietary medicines will be retained where the group concluded that they were necessary and where no generic preparation currently exists. I should emphasise that the quality of all the selected drugs is assured. They all conform to the very high standards we require of all medicines under the Medicines Act 1971.
For the purposes of the regulations that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will introduce, it is necessary to list all the products that will no longer be prescribable on the National Health Service. The regulations will also cover those products which the advisory committee on borderline substances has advised are not medicines and should not be prescribed by general practicioners. I am today publishing both the selected list of drugs and those no longer to be prescribable. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
I shall also today be giving the representatives of the medical and pharmaceutical professions the opportunity to comment on these regulations as they affect the terms of their contracts with the Health Service.
I shall mention three specific issues concerning the operation of the limited list that have been raised during the period of consultation. The first is the question of the arrangements for reviewing the list itself. This was raised by, among others, the Royal College of Physicians. We fully accept that it is essential for independent professional advice to be available after 1 April on the need for changes to the list. I do not believe that complex machinery is required but I shall be very ready to discuss with the

professional bodies concerned how the arrangements that have been used to formulate the extended list should be developed for the future.
Secondly, questions have been raised about the implications of the new arrangements for dispensing doctors—that is, doctors, predominantly in rural areas, who themselves dispense drugs to their patients. For these doctors the regulations will in effect retain the status quo. Dispensing doctors will still be able to supply any medicine to those of their patients for whom they already dispense although they will have to issue private prescriptions for medicines that are no longer available on the National Health Service. Concern has also been expressed about the position of retail pharmacists who now hold stocks of drugs that will no longer be available on the National Health Service. I am quite prepared to examine any relevant evidence that pharmacists may present on their stockholding of drugs.
Thirdly, the question has been raised whether there should be some form of appeal mechanism for individual cases in which a doctor believes it is necessary to prescribe on the National Health Service a medicine that will no longer be available. Most concern was expressed by doctors who felt that there were serious omissions in the provisional list. My unanimous medical advice is that the selected list is now comprehensive and will make it unnecessary on clinical grounds for patients to use medicines not on the list. Nevertheless, let me say this: if, after examining the complete list and in the light of experience, the medical representative organisations still wish to propose that such a mechanism should be provided, my right hon. Friend and I will be ready to discuss it with them. I should make it clear, however, that any mechanism would need to be very carefully controlled to ensure that it could be used only in genuinely exceptional circumstances.
During the period of consultation a number of alternative proposals have been advanced. None of these offered the same prospect of achieving sensible savings in the Health Service drugs bill without either harming the interests of patients or threatening the fundamental and legitimate interests of the pharmaceutical industry. The selected list, which I am publishing today, is likely to produce savings in the drugs bill of some £75 million now, rising to a higher figure in due course. It is by making sensible savings of this kind that we are able to provide health authorities with the increased resources which I announced recently. I am therefore convinced that the approach that we have adopted remains the right one in principle. I also believe that the selected list, which I am publishing today, will demonstrate that in practice the Health Service will continue to provide all medicines required to meet the clinical needs of patients.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that the fact that his final list is no less than three and a half times as long as his first attempt shows what a hash he made of his original statement? For three months he has unnecessarily caused enormous upset and anxiety because of his total failure to consult doctors and the other professions involved. Since the Government included only 31 drugs in the original list yet have always claimed that the list will meet all clinical needs, what guarantee can there be, since the Government


got it so wildly wrong the first time, that even this much extended list is completely proof against further error or misjudgment?
Why, after three months, are the arrangements for reviewing the list not yet finally determined? Does it not show continuing divisions in the Government's thinking when the Secretary of State comes to the House today and says that most medicines in his limited list will be generic products yet the Minister of State said in the House only three weeks ago:
There is no, and never was any, element of generic substitution in the limited list proposals".—[Official Report, 28 January 1985; Vol. 72, c. 59.]
Is the Secretary of State aware that these proposals will still produce a two-tier system, which may well suit Tory interests since privatisation within general practice is more likely if some medicines are obtainable only on a full-cost basis, but will certainly deprive many poorer patients of drugs that they need but cannot afford? Is he also aware that operating a so-called white list of 108 items and a black list of some 1,500 items will produce a bureaucratic nightmare, which will also substantially whittle down any potential net savings?
I have two more technical questions. Why are these provisions being introduced by way of amendments to the terms of service of doctors? On the hospital side, what precise arrangements are being made to override, which is in effect what he is doing, local drug and therapeutic communities where hospital formularies do not coincide with his final list? More fundamentally, his havering on both the review machinery and the appeal mechanism which is needed is not good enough. Will he give an assurance that both will be firmly in place when the scheme starts on 1 April?
On the financial side, since the savings on this list will now fall well short of the £100 million that he promised originally, will he give a commitment, which will be needed if he is to make up the savings total that he spoke of, that the rate of return to the drug manufacturers under the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme will be reduced from the current excessive 21 per cent. at least to the 16·9 per cent. limit that is now accepted as the maximum for risk contractors under Government contract?
If this limited list is so good for Health Service patients, why is the Secretary of State not extending it to private patients?

Mr. Fowler: I think that is one of the silliest responses—

Mr. John Evans: That is not original.

Mr. Fowler: Regrettably, it is not original. That is just the point I was about to make. I have seldom heard such a silly response to a statement.
A few weeks ago the hon. Gentleman was pressing me to consult. I have now consulted and I have brought forward—

Mr. Meacher: Why did the Secretary of State not consult before his earlier list was presented?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that when I announced the proposal, I did so on the Floor of the House of Commons. That, I would have thought, he would support.

Mr. Meacher: No.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman had better make up his mind what the devil he does want, because everyone else is confused.
If I may try to explain to the hon. Gentleman what is happening, we made it clear from the beginning that we would consult on this and that the list was provisional. We have benefited from the advice of about 2,000 general practitioners and also from the advice of the chief medical officer and an independent team. The result is that we have a list of over 100 different medicines compared with the list that we originally proposed. That seems a sensible outcome to the consultation.
To pick up the hon. Gentleman's second major point, it is the unanimous view of the independent committee that the selected list of drugs will meet all clinical requirements. It is for that reason that we set up the independent committee.
In regard to savings, we expect the final list to cut the drugs bill by about £75 million straight away and by more later. I think that the original rough figure was about £100 million. I think that we will come to that in the not too distant future. As for the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme and the negotiations on it, the hon. Gentleman must know—otherwise, he has not been listening to any of the debate on drugs — that those negotiations are taking place at this moment.
As for the hon. Gentleman's last major point on generic substitution, I do not believe in indiscriminate generic substitution. It would not be right to apply that to all categories of medicine. It would undermine the pharmaceutical industry and make research into worth-while and life-saving drugs difficult, if not impossible. I do not believe that is in the interests of the industry, the country, employment or all the things that the pharmaceutical industry has created.
We have consulted on this. We have brought forward an extended list which, I believe, meets all legitimate concerns. I have made it clear that I am prepared to consult further on some crucial issues. At the very least I think the hon. Gentleman's response is entirely churlish.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the concern of the House about this matter, but there is a very important debate on the Royal Air Force in front of us. I shall allow questions on this matter to continue until 5.5 pm, so there will have been a full half hour for the whole statement.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement is a considerable improvement on what he said before and that, given that he means what he says about the possibility of an override facility, it should have a fair wind from members of my party? I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has resolved the problem that he had with his Scottish colleagues over dispensing doctors. However, does he accept that the problem now is that most of the "me too" proprietary drugs, which are the most expensive varieties, are outside the seven categories that the right hon. Gentleman is now listing for us? What proposals does he have to consult on including them in future? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the generics that are on the list, which are available only in proprietary form, are out of licence, so that other people can manufacture them? Otherwise, presumably they are still available only in proprietary form. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us


whether the policing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—will be costly? Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why, in altering the general practitioners' contract, he has not also looked at the pharmacists' contract, because, financially they will be hit seriously by the proposal?

Mr. Fowler: We are in the middle of negotiations with the pharmacists and, as I have already made clear, we shall make the draft regulations available to the medical profession. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question because he has recognised—the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) singularly failed to do so—the considerable steps that have been taken to meet all legitimate concern on the matter. The review was the basic matter that the hon. Gentleman asked about. It was suggested by the Royal College of Physicians that there should be a review of the list. I am accepting that in principle. I should like to talk to the Royal College of Physicians and the other organisations about that, and I am willing to come to any reasonable arrangement with them. However, one or two of the things that I have announced mean that the BMA and organisations like it now have to be prepared to talk. In the light of what I have announced, it would be quite wrong if they were still to refuse to come round the discussion table.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Does not my right hon. Friend's statement show that he has consulted and, indeed, taken account of what was said? Does it not show how irresponsible the BMA's attitude has been? Did my right hon. Friend hear the remarks attributed today to Dr. John Marks, the chairman of the BMA, and were they not another example of utter irresponsibility?

Mr. Fowler: I think that Dr. Marks has got it slightly wrong. I do not want to raise the temperature on this matter again, but frankly I think that he got it wrong on the list and he certainly got it wrong with regard to our aims and intentions to extend the list. I say to Dr. Marks and the BMA that we have made it clear by the action we have taken that we are prepared to listen, change the plans and meet all reasonable requests that have been put to us. I very much hope that the BMA will now understand that and come and talk sensibly about the whole thing.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the statement as it shows some change in pattern. On the other hand, while the Secretary of State said that six independent members advised the chief medical officer, were they like-minded, or were they completely independent in the sense that they had different opinions? Will the right hon. Gentleman specifically tell us whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will issue an identical list and, if so, why he was not mentioned along with the Secretary of State for Scotland in today's statement?

Mr. Fowler: The Secretary of State for Scotland will make his own announcement following this one. There is no question about either the independence or expertise of the advisers. The advice that was given to me was unanimous, and has been accepted entirely and in full by me.

Mrs. Jill Knight: May I assure my right hon. Friend that he has the support of the

overwhelming majority of his right hon. and hon. Friends for the step that he has taken, as we recognise that money in the Health Service must be spent wisely and without waste, if it is to serve the Health Service? Has my right hon. Friend considered, in the flexible approach that he is taking to the matter, the patient who has a psychological tie to one particular drug? Will that rather special case be considered and weighed up in the procedure that my right hon. Friend described?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support, and I think that she speaks for a great many people. With regard to an appeal mechanism for doctors to deal with the situation that my hon. Friend set out, let me repeat that it was the unanimous view of the committee that the selected list of drugs will meet all clinical requirements. Much of the concern was about possible gaps in the original list. Nevertheless, let me make it clear —this is in direct response to my hon. Friend—that if the profession wished to propose an appeal mechanism that would cover a case similar to the one that my hon. Friend raised, I should be ready to discuss that. It must be carefully controlled and concentrated on the exceptional case. Organisations such as the BMA will have to come to talk about that. I cannot do it by proxy.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State accept that the fact that the new list, which I have not yet seen, is now three and a half time larger than his list, represents a resounding vote of no confidence in his initial judgment? Secondly, I should like to make a specific point about clinical assessment. Is it not the case that some elderly people taking more than one drug rely on colour in choosing the drug to take? Perhaps it is a comparatively minor problem in some areas, but it is extremely important. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore operate the exceptions system for at least the first 12 months? Will he operate an appeal system to allow doctors greater flexibility during the trial period, with the appeal being made by the health authorities instead of the other way round, because individuals can suffer severely if the appeal procedure is too long?

Mr. Fowler: I cannot do that, but as I have just made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) I am prepared to talk to the profession on an appeal mechanism. However, I must underline the view that I have from the expert committee, which is that the selected list of drugs will meet all clinical needs. However, I am prepared to try and meet points such as the one that the hon. Gentleman is making, but in the way that I have set out rather than the way that he set out. He referred to consultation. The fact is that if I had come to the House and produced the same list, I would have been accused by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) of not having had any meaningful consultation. I have gone through consultation. I think that we now have a good list. I hope that that will remove much of the controversy and some of the misrepresentation that have dogged the past few months.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Does not the substantial extension of the list that my right hon. Friend has just announced fully vindicate his insistence, sometimes in the face of hostile and organised opposition, that he was willing to listen to the views of doctors and others? Does my right hon. Friend accept that his


announced willingness to contemplate an appeals procedure will be greatly welcomed both on Conservative Benches and in the country, and further vindicates the Government's reasonable attitude on the issue?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the appeals procedure will be welcomed in the medical profession and generally by the public. With regard to consultation, it must be said that, although the BMA has not put detailed points to us, we have had the advice of just under 2,000 general practitioners who have written to us. Therefore, there is no question but that the basis of the advice that we have had has been extensive and sound.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Will the Secretary of State move forward from considering the appeals system to considering brand new drugs? What happens to the brand new drugs that are flooding the market? Who will decide which of those drugs is to be accepted on the NHS list? Will the Secretary of State assure us that the new machinery to evaluate those drugs will be open to public scrutiny so that we know that safety, efficacy and need are the overriding considerations? Cost should not be the overriding consideration. If it were, the right hon. Gentleman would be economising at the expense of the National Health patient.

Mr. Fowler: We are not, in any way, relaxing the licensing system. I entirely accept that any advice upon which we act must be independent and must be seen to be independent. I am certainly prepared to have talks about that type of mechanism. The review mechanism that I want would consider new drugs and whether there was a new suitable generic alternative to replace a branded drug. Obviously, this would occur within the seven categories that I have set out.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as one who has been connected for nearly 20 years with the pharmaceutical industry, I am deeply apprehensive that these new measures will inevitably lead to further restrictions on prescribing by doctors? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that cannot be in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, of doctors and, above all, of patients?

Mr. Fowler: The Government support a prosperous pharmaceutical industry. My Department is the sponsoring Department. I understand that the industry does not want a change in those arrangements. Ninety-five per cent. of drugs on the NHS list that will not now be prescribed do not require a prescription in any event. When my hon. Friend has the opportunity to read the list, he will note that all kinds of drugs, which I think the public would find extraordinary, cannot now be prescribed. The list includes Barker's Liquid of Life, Dr. Williams Pink Pills, Mrs. Cullen's Powders and Rock Salmon Cough Mixture. I have no objection to people using Rock Salmon Cough Mixture, but I have the strongest objection to the taxpayer picking up the bill for it.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: If the Secretary of State looks at the first item under "Analgesics" he will see that doctors are now to be permitted to prescribe aspirin tablets. Will people be asked to pay £1·80 for a bottle of aspirin tablets?

Mr. Fowler: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the list he will see that a much wider range of analgesics will

be available. The advice of my medical experts on the independent committee is that that range of drugs will be adequate to meet all clinical needs.

Mr. David Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our principal concern should be for the patient rather than about telling the doctor what he may or may not do? Would it not be wiser to leave the doctor with his freedom rather than restrain an innovative and successful industry? Would it not be better to use education rather than edict to achieve the economies that are sought by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend must recognise that I am trying to seek value for money throughout the whole of the NHS. That means that I am trying to ensure that money is directed towards patient care. I do not think that it would be defensible for me or the Government to leave any aspect of the NHS—the drugs bill or any other item—out of that scrutiny. That is what we have done. That is why I believe that this policy is right. I emphasise again for my hon. Friend's benefit that 95 per cent. of the drugs that will not now be prescribed do not require a prescription in any event. That is a fairly conclusive answer to my hon. Friend's fears.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I remind the Secretary of State that he is the first Minister of any political persuasion since the inception of the Health Service to interfere with a doctor's clinical freedom. Is this not a precedent? When a professional politician can order a doctor as to the treatment he will give, it goes beyond pharmaceutical services. It is really a red light showing throughout the NHS. Does a doctor—not a rural doctor—prescribing privately to a patient on his list have to charge the patients a fee? Does the doctor have to remove the patient from his list? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that clinical needs cover more than just the ingredients of a pill or medicine that is delivered? A range of aspects is covered. A doctor is the only person able to decide the best treatment for his patient. A doctor can take a million different approaches because of his knowledge of his patient.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman will know that a doctor cannot charge a fee for a prescription. On the hon. Gentleman's first point about my being the first Minister to interfere with the freedom of prescription, I would put it another way: this Government are the first Government to tackle the problem of the drugs bill inside the NHS.

Mr. Pavitt: The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) did.

Mr. Fowler: I thank the hon. Gentleman. That was another Conservative Government. This Government act when the Opposition have just wind and hot air.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the great interest in this statement, I shall allow questions to continue until 5.10 pm.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: On the issue of clinical freedom to which the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) referred, does my right hon. Friend agree that this same freedom is extended in no other country that has a publicly financed national health service? Why, therefore, is it considered that complete clinical freedom should prevail only in this country?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. There are restrictions of one kind or another in virtually every other country in western Europe. This is a sensible policy, which other Governments have accepted. I ask the House to accept that the vast majority of the drugs that will not be prescribable under the NHS do not require a prescription in any event. This means that people can buy those drugs over the counter and do not require a doctor's prescription.

Mrs. Renée Short: Not long ago the Minister of State told me in answer to a parliamentary question that the estimated savings from the limited list will enable the Government to maintain the level of expenditure announced in the autumn statement. The Secretary of State has clearly retreated from that position. How will he know what savings have been made? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House the mechanism for checking that amount?

Mr. Fowler: We have not retreated from that position. The result of the consultation is that our original estimate of up to £100 million, which was a rough estimate at that time, has been reduced to £75 million. We always recognised that the consultation would mean reduced savings. Our aim now is to look for additional ways of obtaining better value from the drugs bill. One of the encouraging aspects of this debate has been the fact that more attention than ever before has been given to this issue. I hope that we shall achieve further savings through better prescribing and more competition in the generic manufacturing of the drugs on the limited list.

Sir David Price: I ask my right hon. Friend, in his capacity as the sponsoring Minister of the pharmaceutical industry, what effect his new list will have on employment. My right hon. Friend will be aware that both sides of the House have received vigorous representations from the pharmaceutical industry telling us that his original list was destructive of jobs.

Mr. Fowler: It would be sensible for the pharmaceutical industry to look at the new extended list before rushing into any kind of estimate. I want to emphasise two points. The Government entirely support a prosperous pharmaceutical industry, and the industry recognises that. It also recognises that it does not want a change of sponsorship from the Department of which I am Secretary of State. The research into some of the most important drugs in the most crucial areas would be affected by a policy of generic substitution—it will not be affected by the policies that I propose.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Secretary of State agree that the lack of initial consultation with the medical profession gave rise to the legitimate fears about the list being expressed by many people? Had he consulted initially with the medical profession on the basis of the Greenfield report, he could have presented the House not with indiscriminate generic substitution but with generic substitution involving medical consent, which would have led to greater savings than those that he has predicted this afternoon.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman's last point is entirely wrong. If he believes it, he should do a little more homework on the subject. It is bizarre to suggest that we need more consultation and more talks about how we should try to reduce the drugs bill. Ever since I have been in my Department—three and a half years—and for

years before that we have talked about this subject and debated it in the House. What is required are decisions, and what I am putting forward is the basis of a reasonable decision for this House to reach.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the recent advertising campaign by the pharmaceutical industry? Does he regard it as a shameful example of exploiting people's fears and putting self-interest before public interest?

Mr. Fowler: The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry—and in some ways it does not speak for all the excellent companies—has gone entirely over the top in its advertising campaign and has sought to raise fears unnecessarily. When the only solution to the problem that the association puts forward is that of taking away exemptions from old people, I find it extraordinary and hypocritical that it should mount an advertising campaign in which it claims to be defending NHS patients.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any Secretary of State with responsibility for the NHS who begins with a restricted list of 30 items and then returns to the House with 100 items has shown himself wholly unfit to have the care of the Health Service in his hands? Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that, although he is leaving 100 items on the list, he is taking 1,800 items off the list? Of those, the vast majority are prescribed for old-age pensioners. Is not the Secretary of State condemning old-age pensioners to having to buy their medicines across the counter?
I congratulate the 54 general practitioners in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), who inspired the Under-Secretary to fight a little harder than he usually fights to ensure that the position of the prescribing doctors would be preserved. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether it is the Government's intention to buy back from the pharmacists the drugs that they hold in stock and that will now be removed from the list?

Mr. Fowler: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has done any better than his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who began the questions. We always said that we would consult, and that consultation has provided a list that is more extensive and which meets all the clinical needs of patients. That is what the consultation was about. I share the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman—I am glad to agree with him on one point—in his admiration for the views put by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on dispensing doctors. They have been invaluable in helping the Government to come to a decision.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that I may have had a response, from a sedentary position, to my question to the Secretary of State on whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise a question with the Secretary of State, which is not a matter for me. It is unfair on hon. Members who wish to contribute to the following debate to extend questions on the statement, which have already continued for much longer than I originally suggested.

Rev. Martin Smyth: How can Northern Ireland Members raise issues affecting the NHS when we have


been told that they have been turned over to the Northern Ireland desk, especially as this is a national debate? Ministers from the Welsh and Scottish Offices were present on the Treasury Bench but Northern Ireland was not represented. I asked the Secretary of State a specific question, which I think he answered from a sedentary position—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should table a question on this matter or write to the Secretary of State.

Skillcentres

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about skillcentres.
I advised the House on 29 November of the Skillcentre Training Agency's proposals to the Manpower Services Commission. On 24 January, the chairman of the commission informed me of the commission's conclusions.
The proposals for the reorganisation of the skillcentre network are designed to eliminate the present waste of resources and to enable the funds thus released to be employed in substantially increasing the number of training opportunities.
The proposals form part of the adult training strategy adopted by the commission over a year ago, after the widest possible consultation. Under that strategy, the number of adults being trained under the commission's programmes is planned to rise to 250,000 by 1986–87. That is more than double the 1983–84 figure. It includes a substantial increase in the number of unemployed helped. All parts of the country will benefit from this expansion.
The reorganised skillcentre network has an important role to play in further development of training. I very much welcome the emphasis the centres are now putting on new and higher technology skills, which will now be more widely available. I have today confirmed again to the chairman of the commission further capital investment in the network of £10·5 million for 1985–86. The addition also of a new 300-strong mobile instructor force is an imaginative and positive innovation. It gives greater flexibility, and allows coverage in remote areas not previously covered by the skillcentre network.
I have now considered the proposals, taking into account the evidence given to the Select Committee on Employment on this matter and all the further representations made to me. Following consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales, I have today written to the chairman of the commission, and I am placing a copy of my letter in the Library.
In my letter, I have asked the commission to implement the agency's proposals. I have asked the chairman to make quite sure in doing so that when any closures are involved, they should not take place until satisfactory alternative provisions have been identified. I have asked that the fullest consultation takes place with the staff and trade unions, with particular regard to negotiating new working practices designed to help the overall efficiency of the network, and to avoiding compulsory redundancies wherever possible.
The proposals for the reorganisation of the skillcentres make sense as a necessary step in improving the cost-effectiveness of training programmes, thus enabling substantial expansion in training opportunities, for unemployed as well as employed people, throughout the country.

Mr. John Prescott: This is a shameful statement. It calls for the closing of 29 skillcentres, the scrapping of their equipment, the scrapping of jobs for hundreds of skilled instructors at a


time when Britain has more than 1.5 million long-term unemployed, and the least qualified labour force of any developed economy—all this at a time when, according to the CBI, industry is desperately short of every kind of skill. This will be music to the ears of our competitors, and it will add insult to injury. Instead of a justified increase in the number of places, the Government's emphasis is simply on quantity rather than the quality of skills. The Secretary of State is a disgrace to his office and responsibilities, quite apart from his shameful behaviour in joining with management to intimidate workers against joining their protest to this House last week.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this is now a Government decision to close these skillcentres and to sack hundreds of skilled instructors? He cannot hide behind the commission, given that the majority of commissioners are against these proposals. Will he reaffirm his comment to the Employment Select Committee that he would be loth to go against the majority of the commission? If that is the case, why did he do so?
Is not the real reason for these closures the financial remit which the Treasury has set for the Manpower Services Commission, involving the closure of six profitable centres in London, Gloucester, Bristol, Southampton and Medway? What kind of market economics is that?
Does he accept that the Opposition welcome any proposal to increase training facilities, but we do not believe that the quantity of training should be increased and improved at the expense of quantity — [HON. MEMBERS: "Quality."] I apologise, that is what I meant. I hope that my point has got across to simple minds.
Does not the Secretary of State recognise that these proposals are a kick in the teeth for the 1.5 million long-term unemployed, who are desperate for such training courses? At a time when the Government have abolished industrial training boards, and given the collapse in the number of apprenticeships, it is hypocrisy for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about improving the quality of training.
Is he aware that the London Business School report, produced for a Select Committee of this House, emphasised the future viability of the network and made it clear that if policies such as these were applied to the whole network, the remaining centres would be unviable and could face possible closure? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his claim about yesterday's skills provided by yesterday's instructors finds no echo in industry, where there is a desperate shortage of every kind of skill? What is his definition of yesterday's skills which are provided by the existing centres?

Mr. King: It would be shameful if anyone in my position allowed the losses that are occurring and the under-use of capacity to waste existing financial resources, thereby preventing those resources from being made available to absolutely essential training which is needed.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman has studied the evidence given to the Select Committee. He will know that the effect of the proposals for the Skillcentre Training Agency will reduce available places from 17,000 to 13,000. He will also know that the number of places taken up this year

is only 12,500, and that more than £20 million in lost money for under-used places could have gone towards training other people.
It is a sad reflection of the present employment situation and the change in skills that less than half those coming out of skillcentres find occupation in the trades for which they have been trained. Against that, there is an urgent need to ensure that training is increased in those areas where there are now skill shortages and where there is a real opportunity to ensure that people obtain skills which will give them the best chance of obtaining jobs.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I again remind the House that an important debate is to follow, but because of the great interest in this matter I shall allow questions to continue until 5.50 pm and then we shall have to move on.

Mr. Bruce Millan: The Secretary of State referred to under-used places, but is he aware that the skillcentre in my constituency has such places because it has been deliberately run down in anticipation of the decision that he has announced today? In any case, are not a majority of the MSC commissioners against these proposals? How, therefore, can the right hon. Gentleman go ahead on that basis, unless this is a decision of the Secretary of State rather than the MSC?

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point, but I am not sure whether I agree with it. As he knows, since the MSC met and the chairman wrote to me, I have received a letter from one Commissioner who reported the commission's conclusions to me. That gentleman's proposal was not that the scheme should be rejected but that it should be postponed. Against that background, the adult training strategy has been agreed unanimously by all the commissioners, as has the cost recovery objective of the Skillcentre Training Agency. Are we then to have a further period of uncertainty, and should the commission reduce the training opportunities available which could otherwise be funded from the savings that could be made by eliminating waste, or should a decision be taken now? My judgment—and I have come straight to the House to announce it—is that a decision should now be taken.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Association of British Chambers of Commerce recently published a report on education and training, which makes clear its desire that employers should have the major say in the quality of training? Is he also aware that in the evidence given to the Select Committee it was made perfectly clear that the employers were not entirely satisfied with what was happening, and it was felt that the creation of mobile instructors, using employers' premises and equipment, was a much more satisfactory way of meeting training needs?

Mr. King: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. Perhaps I can also reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about yesterday's training for yesterday's skills. I have never used that phrase. The truth is that the demand for some skills has diminished, but in my statement I paid tribute to the valuable part that the skillcentres have to play. Anyone who looks at these figures objectively will see that at present the range of the network is out of phase with training needs. There are urgent needs for training in other


areas, not least an expansion in the training programmes which I have announced to enable the unemployed to get back to work. There is simply no point in allowing losses to mount up in bricks and mortar and to under-use facilities of various kinds when that money could be made available for training people. We are in the business of giving the maximum help to people, not to institutions.

Mr. Eric Forth: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great concern that has been caused in Redditch in my constituency by the proposed closures. If I noted his words correctly, he said that no individual closure would take place until satisfactory alternative provision had been identified. I believe that my constituents will take some comfort from that. Can he assure me that in an area such as Redditch the full resources released by the closures will be put into additional training facilities in the locality and that, in particular, employers will have a greater incentive to provide private training facilities on the premises and on the job? Let us get back to the old apprenticeship schemes to which we all believe we should return.

Mr. King: I certainly give that assurance to my hon. Friend in relation to the requirement laid on the chairman, which my hon. Friend correctly observed in my statement.
We are trying to make training as appropriate and flexible as we can. I have made it clear that skillcentres have an important part to play, but at present their capacity is out of scale with the demand for them. We need to use the resources in other areas. If we can achieve this change and get the strategy going, we shall ensure that there will be a 157 per cent. increase by 1986–87 in the number of people in the west midlands area who will have training opportunities. I make no apology for making that possible.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Does the Secretary of State realise that his statement would be more credible if he identified the skills for which there will be less training and attention through these modifications? I am sure that he would not try to mislead the House that that is not the conclusion of his statement. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) referred to "satisfactory alternative provisions". Will the Secretary of State explain what that means? Does it mean satisfactory in terms of quality or quantity? Who will judge whether an alternative is satisfactory, because unless it is monitored that statement is meaningless, as I suspect it is?

Mr. King: I think that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the structure of the MSC and with the area manpower boards, on which industrialists, educationists, trade unionists and local people sit and work with the MSC. They work extremely carefully. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in the training that takes place when he asks what the equivalent alternative provision is. We are now launching a whole range of different schemes. I would have thought that he of all people, as the representative for Cornwall, would recognise the values for rural areas, such as those that he and I partly represent, of having a mobile instructor team as a reinforcement and of making the very best use of the facilities that exist. I hope that he will recognise that this is an attempt to expand training opportunities and to make them as effective and relevant as possible.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation of my constituents at

the Dudley skillcentre that the Minister of State, Department of Employment came and spent many hours considering the position there? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be a smooth transition, if there is to be a closure, which is subject to consultation, and that it is critically important that training is expanded at in-house level? My only hope is that the money which is to be allocated will produce the figures that he quoted for more training in the area.

Mr. King: I am aware of the close interest that my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) take in their local skillcentres. I can certainly give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: How can it possibly make sense to close a skillcentre in an area where 100,000 jobs have been lost and 449 factories closed since the Government came to power in 1979? Is it not incumbent on the Secretary of State to tell the House what the real alternatives are for the people of Merseyside as a result of the closure of the Liverpool skillcentre? Does it not smack of putting the cart before the horse to tell the House that he will close the Liverpool skillcentre before he has alternatives, bearing in mind that many jobs are being lost, including 300 at Guinness, precisely because we do not have the skills for the new technology? We in Liverpool have a right to know what the alternatives will be before a closure takes place.

Mr. King: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman listened to my statement. His request for an assurance that the skillcentre should not be closed before alternative arrangements were made, was precisely the point that I sought to make because it is so important. I hope that he will recognise that, as a result of the reorganisation, we are likely to be able to double the opportunity for training for people in Liverpool and Merseyside. I would have thought that he would have welcomed that.

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: While I accept the sense of my right hon. Friend's proposals for extending training opportunities, will he reiterate his assurances to my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) that when constituents, such as mine, are likely to be faced with the closure of a skillcentre, the MSC will make every attempt to explain what will happen with the greatest possible clarity?

Mr. King: I certainly accept that point. Part of the reason why I made the statement today was that there should not be any continuing uncertainty about the position.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Does the Secretary of State agree that this is another example of the short-sighted short-term policy pursued by the Government? The people in Doncaster will be disappointed. Will he assure the House that if there are no suitable acceptable alternatives, those skillcentres will remain open so long as there is a need for them?

Mr. King: I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman about that. He came with his colleagues to see me about the position in Doncaster. I understand their anxiety. In my statement I specifically sought to give the assurance that he seeks. The hon. Gentleman talked about the shortsighted attitude of the Government, but these proposals


derive partly, as is widely known, from the training division of the MSC and its identification of need. The funds are there, and the question is what is the best way to use them. Opposition Members find it easy to stand back from the reality of these matters, but if they were faced with the same choice, would they waste money on unused bricks and mortar, or would they insist on making training available for people?

Mr. Christopher Chope: How does my right hon. Friend's strategy justify closing the annexe in Southampton, when both the main centre and the annexe are making a profit, when it is an area of recognised skill shortage, when it has the support of the local chamber of commerce, and when the people who work there work hard and are highly respected? Will he reconsider the matter and, if he will not, will he consider the alternative option of privatisation?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will understand that it is a question of available capacity. If there is under-used capacity it makes good sense to use it in the most effective way. The question is not whether an individual centre is profitable so much as where capacity is. We want an efficient and relevant network. I certainly take note of my hon. Friend's comments, and I know that he has taken a close interest in the Southampton annexe.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Why does the Secretary of State persist in conveying the impression that he does not know what on earth we are worrying about, when we are all deeply worried about what he is doing? Does he remember that last week, despite his intimidation, many people came here to lobby the House? There would have been a bigger lobby if they had not felt intimidated and threatened with the loss of their jobs. Is it not a fact that 29 skillcentres will be closed, that many people who need training for the new technologies and who are out of work want to be trained but will not be trained, and that those people who came here know that more than 1,000 of them will lose their jobs? That is what we are worried about. We have come for bread but he only gives us a stone. He should explain to the House the words "satisfactory alternative provisions". No hon. Member believes that those satisfactory alternative provisions will come about, because the unemployed and the Opposition mistrust the Government and believe that an increasing number of people will be out of work.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman made an absolutely untrue allegation, which was referred to obliquely earlier, that somehow I sought to ban civil servants from taking industrial action about this matter. Ministers were not consulted. Civil servants followed normal personnel arrangements and asked, not whether they could come, but if they could demonstrate at the House on annual paid leave. Without consulting Ministers, civil servants observed the rules that had traditionally operated throughout the life of the Civil Service. I must tell the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), who I think was the parliamentary private secretary on one occasion to a Minister in the Labour Government, that we identified the occasions when precisely the same refusal was given. A refusal was given by the Labour Government to civil

servants who sought during the winter of discontent and the Society of Civil and Public Servants' strike to take annual paid leave. So I hope that he will keep quiet about that.
I take the matter extremely seriously and I respect the right of people who wish to demonstrate, to do so, not on annual paid leave, but with the loss of pay, as under the standard Civil Service procedure. If the hon. Gentleman has not understood the point of my statement, if he thinks that losses should be made in the upkeep of old buildings that are being under-used, and that money should be denied to people for training, I am glad that he is not in charge of our training programmes.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I welcome the concept of the mobile training force, but how many places will be available nationally and how many will be available in the south-west? Can my right hon. Friend outline the basis on which arrangements are to be made?

Mr. King: The MSC intends to make wide use of various alternative provisions, sometimes involving colleges of further education, and sometimes using employers' premises for existing employees. Indeed, on Friday I saw excellent facilities at a substantial workshop in Cheshire. Those facilities are now under-utilised, but they could, for example, be employed by the MSC. The numbers involved will be as many as can get on to the appropriate programme.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Does the Secretary of State realise that the deep concern goes far beyond the staff affected? Today's statement will not end the public's puzzlement about why skillcentres are being closed when the country is desperately in need of skill. Have the disabled training facilities often found at such places been taken on board by the Ministry in its forward planning?

Mr. King: I think that the public were probably puzzled as to what on earth was going on in maintaining a training network that was only two-thirds used, especially when only half the people being trained used the skills. After all, the public know that there are serious skill shortages in other areas for which resources are not available. That was the cause of their puzzlement. If I am to be criticised, it is perhaps because the situation should have been tackled a long time ago. However, we shall certainly seek to maintain provision for training the disabled.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that misgivings will be felt in Langbaurgh and Cleveland this evening about the decision not to keep open the Middlesbrough skillcentre? Although the additional finance is welcome, if skillcentres are failing to do the job for which they were set up they should be revamped, reorganised and set up again properly. To close them before the experimentation of the travelling trainers has been carried through is to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Mr. King: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I know of his close interest in the subject, as he has talked to me about such matters. He will realise that after these changes, the skillcentre network will have more capacity than is now needed, and that is even before we consider mobile training instructors, and so on.
The Opposition are being singularly unconstructive, but I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that the MSC and the Skillcentre Training Agency have made a determined attempt, with the support of the training division and professional trainers, to ensure that the very best training facilities are provided within the resources available.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: May I again ask the Secretary of State a question about the closure of the Llanelli skillcentre which serves Dyfed and West Glamorgan? Perhaps he will do what he failed to do on 29 November and answer my question. That skillcentre has one of the highest occupancy rates of any skillcentre in Wales and one of the best records for placing trainees in jobs and has responded over the past 18 months by providing courses to keep up with the technological changes. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether what I have said is incorrect? If it is not incorrect, let us have the facts.

Mr. King: I understand from my hon. Friend the Minister of State that it is certainly true that the skillcentre has improved its occupancy rate, but I think that there is still under-used capacity there. The matter has been fully discussed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and he and my hon. Friend the Minister are determined to ensure that the undertaking given at the end of the statement about alternative provision is fulfilled.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the purpose of training is to spend money not on buildings but on the improvement of individuals' skills? Will he give some assurances about the training of the disabled in the north-west in view of the proposed changes at the Denton skillcentre in Manchester?

Mr. King: We certainly seek to protect the position of the disabled. I cannot give my hon. Friend the full details about the north-west now, but I shall arrange to write to him, and will give him the full details. However, I am grateful to him for stating so clearly the essential point at stake. If we are to compete with the new technologies and to meet the needs of an expanding economy in the years ahead, we must modernise our training. If the Opposition stick to their present attitude, when the lessons to be drawn about the steps that should be taken are so patently obvious, I tell them that the Government do not intend to sit back and to allow training to fossilise. We will modernise it and give the best chance of jobs for our people.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Secretary of State for Scotland was with him when the closures were discussed? Did the Secretary of State for Scotland acquiesce in the closures that are to take place in Scotland? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the commission reached its decision with the smallest majority possible, and that one of its members saw the error of his ways and would have wanted to change his vote if the commission had been recalled? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that one member of the commission was inadvertently absent on other business but would have voted for the retention of those centres? Given that, and the fact that Strathclyde region has the highest population of any region in Scotland and the highest number of people unemployed, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and decide to save those centres in Scotland?

Mr. King: I consulted the Secretary of State for Scotland on these matters. When the hon. Gentleman referred to an absent commissioner, I think that he was referring to a TUC commissioner, and his vote was also considered. The commission's views, and the letter that the chairman of the MSC wrote to me — a copy of which has been placed in the Library — make it clear that the views of those not present were taken into account. I understand that that letter had the full support of every member of the commission.

Mr. David Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the hysteria that is usual for Opposition Members when any proposal is made to improve the quality and quantity of something in this country instead of just throwing money at it? Will he take it from me that the proposal for a mobile force of 300 instructors is most welcome? If it is discovered that we need more of them, will he guarantee to increase the numbers to whatever figure is necessary, as that will help rural areas such as mine?

Mr. King: I am very pleased to have been able to announce the increase in the number of training opportunities. I am determined to see how we can improve training. But to do that, we must be ready to make changes. We cannot allow the situation to remain as it has always been, when the facts are staring us in the face and we know that losses are being incurred by a failure to act. We will act, but we shall do so entirely in the interests of training opportunities for our people.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the annexe to the Southampton skillcentre, which he intends to shut, operates at a profit, has a waiting list of applicants, and is used largely by local firms, which are very satisfied with it? Will he ensure that the instructors who will not be so mobile at last visit my constituency—I hope that he is listening—as we could do with them? The right hon. Gentleman is shutting a profitable annexe and skillcentre, which is contrary to everything he has said from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. King: If an hon. Member cannot listen with both ears at the same time, he should not be in the House. But, to be serious, I am well aware of the concern felt about the Southampton annexe. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has had discussions on that matter. He will be reporting hon. Members' views on certain aspects to the chairman of the commission. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I made a further visit to the excellent Perivale skillcentre in my constituency last week? May we have an assurance for the people working there, because some of them fear that they may be replaced by people who have served longer at other skillcentres which face closure? Will he also examine the cost recovery principle and assure me that he will not press that to the ultimate, bearing in mind that I chaired a conference designed to bring more money into that skillcentre? That has had some success, but it is not easy.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the close interest which he takes in his local skillcentre. His question is a sign of that interest and the positive role that he has played. My hon. Friend asks about changes in staffing and what might happen after reorganisation. That


is a matter for the Manpower Services Commission and the Slcillcentre Training Agency. They will take note of my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. John Evans: Since the majority of MSC commisioners now disagree with the proposal to close 29 centres, and in view of the Secretary of State's previous statements about his inability to direct the MSC, could the MSC now reject the proposal in his statement?
The Minister says that no individual skillcentre closure will take place until a satisfactory alternative has been provided. Will he explain what is the satisfactory alternative to a good, well situated and well run skillcentre? Why close valuable skillcentres when the Minister has already conceded the need for satisfactory alternatives?
Does the Minister accept that his claim that he is expanding adult training is a charade because he will provide only a smattering of low-level, occasional training? Is not that completely in line with the Tory party's determination to turn Great Britain into a low-pay, low-technology economy?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman makes a brave attempt yet again to beat a flagging horse to life. We have discussed the matter long enough this afternoon to know that it simply will not run. The better alternative to many of the skillcentres is the establishment of skill training places that will be used, but put to full benefit and from which people will move to real and full-time jobs. That is better than facilities being under-used and being used by people half of whom will not be able to get jobs in the skills for which they are trained.
Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House his claims about low technology and an inadequate service when I have just announced an increase in capital expenditure on the reorganised network precisely because we want to take advantages of the new technology?

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. From the Minister's response to the question by my hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That immediately rules out the point out of order. I can answer points of order only if they concern questions that are put to me for my decision. It is no good drawing my attention to a Minister's response.

Mr. Clarke: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to refer to what I thought was your response to what the Minister had to say. I thought that you showed extreme impatience at the length of the reply. If you did, many of us would agree with you. I certainly do. I have been here since 2.45. If you were to make a plea to Ministers to give brief replies so that hon. Members like myself could ask brief questions, we would agree with you.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it is a good thing that we do not have television in this place.

"20:20 Vision" Programme

Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the ban imposed last night by the Independent Broadcasting Authority on Channel 4's '20:20 Vision' programme entitled 'M15's Official Secrets'.
The full IBA saw this programme first in January. It saw it at other times and again last night and decided to stop the public from seeing it. That is a most serious step which inhibits proper public debate on a matter of urgent public importance. It is also an act of censorship by the IBA because it is not a law enforcement agency. It is more properly a matter for the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, after screening.
The film makes allegations about the surveillance methods used by the security services against individuals and organisations who are in no way suspected of terrorist or subversive activities. It alleges that even my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) was investigated, as well as human rights activists and trade unionists. It alleges misdirection of the security services in breach of their own operational rules, which state:
The Security Services should be kept absolutely free from any political bias or influence.
The programme alleges a clear breach of those rules by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence. It is alleged that in March 1983 the Secretary of State for Defence established the DS19 unit to counter the growing effectiveness and popularity of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
In August 1983 the Home Secretary is alleged to have authorised a phone tap of CND headquarters. This was done for purely party political reasons, in clear breach of the security services operational rules and against assurances about the "entirely legitimate activity" of CND given by the Home Secretary to the House on 20 December 1984 and repeated to the Home Affairs Select Committee as recently as 30 January 1985.
These are serious allegations of political interference and misuse of the security services by Cabinet Ministers and the IBA has prevented proper public examination of them. Because of the seriousness of the allegations the House will agree that they should be urgently debated here. I seek the Adjournment of the House for that specific and important purpose.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the ban imposed last night by the Independent Broadcasting Authority on Channel 4's '20:20 Vision' programme entitled 'MI5's Official Secrets'.
I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we may debate matters only when ministerial responsibility is involved. The hon. Gentleman heard what the Leader of the House said at business questions today.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter to


be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Royal Air Force

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Speaker: Before the Minister opens the debate, I wish to inform the House that I shall impose the 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 o'clock and 8.50 pm. I hope that it will be possible to call all right hon. and hon. Members Who wish to speak in the debate.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): I am sure that the House will wish to be aware that today, as we debate the Royal Air Force, the funerals of six members of the RAF Germany band have taken place at Rheindahlen. The House will know that the bodies of the other 12 bandsmen and the RAF policeman killed last week have been flown home, in accordance with their families' wishes, so that their funerals can take place in this country. I know that the thoughts and deep sympathy of the House will be with the families of those who so tragically lost their lives.
The RAF is in the midst of one of the largest re-equipment programmes it has had for very many years—a programme that could not have been accommodated on its present scale if the Government had not achieved a real terms increase in defence expenditure of about one fifth since 1979.
The Tornado programme is the centrepiece of the RAF's equipment programme. Another four squadrons of the Tornado GR1 have formed since last year's RAF debate. We now have eight squadrons in all—three in the United Kingdom and five in RAF Germany. Eventually, 11 squadrons will be equipped with this aircraft, including two in the reconnaissance role.
The Tornado GR1 is capable of the highest levels of performance in the strike/attack and reconnaissance roles. The aircraft can exceed 800 knots at sea level and twice the speed of sound at high level. Depending on its mission, the GR1 can operate at ranges of up to 750 miles, though this can be extended by air-to-air refuelling. The GR1 is capable of operating at night in all weathers. With its ability to penetrate enemy air defence at low level and at high speed, and its highly accurate bombing performance, the GR1 represents a giant leap in capability over the aircraft that it has replaced.
I referred to the accuracy of the Tornado's bombing performance. The House may know that, last October, the RAF entered the Tornado, supported by Victor tanker aircraft, in the prestigious and fiercely contested Strategic Air Command bombing competition in the United States. This is a long-standing competition and it was ambitious to enter the new Tornado in a foreign competition so soon after its entry into service against well established American B52s, and American and Australian F111s.
The results were outstanding. Our teams came first and second out of 42 crews in the Curtis Le May bombing competition for overall high and low level bombing, first and third out of eight crews in the Meyer trophy for operational effectiveness, and second out of 21 teams in the Mathis trophy for performance over all six competition missions. These results reflect the greatest credit on the Tornado crews and their supporting tanker and engineering crews, on the effectiveness of the Tornado aircraft and on the capability of British industry.
Following on behind the Tornado GR1 is the air defence variant, the F2. The first two Tornado F2s have been delivered to RAF Coningsby for ground familiarisation and training, and instructor training with British Aerospace has now commenced. A total of seven squadrons are planned, and the F2, with its excellent range and loiter capability, will be a key element in the defence of the United Kingdom's airspace into the 21st century.
There have been some difficulties with the development of the F2's air defence radar, but these have now largely been overcome. This will somewhat delay the build-up of squadron deployment. Nevertheless the RAF will have received a small number of operational aircraft by the end of this year.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Will the Minister say something about the "identification, friend or foe" system? I understand that there is no standardised NATO version yet.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is right. The matter has been under deliberation in NATO circles for some time. There has been a difference of view. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Ministers have done everything possible to resolve the matter but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are not able to resolve it on our own. In the meantime, we are seeing what improvements can be made in our own IFF capability. It is an extremely important issue and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting it.
The defence of the United Kingdom's airspace will continue to be the responsibility of the RAF's Phantom squadrons as well. There are currently five Phantom air defence squadrons in the United Kingdom. Two will be run on following the introduction of the Tornado F2. Allowing for the phasing out of the two remaining Lightning squadrons, this will give the United Kingdom an increase in its front line air defence squadrons from seven to nine.
To make good the shortfall in immediately available aircraft for the United Kingdom's air defence caused by the deployment of Phantoms to the Falklands, a squadron of Phantom F4J aircraft has been purchased from the United States. This squadron formed at RAF Wattisham last November.
As the House knows, to provide additional aircraft for the air defence of the United Kingdom, the Hawk trainer is being modified to carry Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. A total of 72 aircraft are being modified. This programme is ahead of schedule and will be completed in 1986.
In considering the long-term future of the Buccaneer force, various numbers of aircraft were put forward. The latest position is that we plan to update 42 Buccaneers—enough to run on two squadrons in the maritime strike/attack role, and the training unit, well into the 1990s. They will be armed with the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile, which will enter service later this year. This sea-skimming missile will considerably enhance the Buccaneer's effectiveness by allowing low level attacks on surface ships at long range.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it intended to modernise the two squadrons of Phantoms that are to be retained as the Buccaneers are being modernised for their continuing role?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is referring to the avionics update on the Buccaneers. We hope to be able to reach a decision on that shortly. I cannot tell him whether there is a similar avionics update on the Phantoms to which I referred. If I may, I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement to deal with that in his winding-up speech.
The modernisation of the RAF's Nimrod maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine aircraft will be completed by the end of this year. The Mark II Nimrod is one of the most potent maritime patrol aircraft in the world. In the anti-submarine role, the Nimrod is equipped with advanced sonobuoys and on-board computers for location and tracking. Surface shipping is identified by the Searchwater radar. The Nimrod can be armed with the Stingray anti-submarine torpedo and the Harpoon standoff missile for use against surface ships. Each Nimrod will be provided with an air-to-air refuelling capability which will enable a single aircraft to maintain continous surveillance over 10,000 square miles of ocean and spend over 10 hours on task.
As to the RAF's support aircraft, the programme to stretch 30 of our 60 Hercules is nearing completion. Twenty-three of these aircraft are being fitted with station-keeping radar equipment, which will allow the aircraft to maintain formation in all weathers and thus give us a greatly improved parachute assault capability.
May I pay a warm tribute to the Hercules crews and the Victor tanker crews for the outstanding way in which they have maintained the Falklands airbridge? Five days each week, Hercules undertake this 13 hour in-flight-refuelled journey with a 90 per cent. on time arrival record. It is a very long flight, a long way from diversion airfields, with weather that is always uncertain and frequently awful, and with plenty that can go wrong. Maintaining that airbridge has required from air crews and ground crews alike skill and stamina of a very high order. The Hercules crews have unfailingly demonstrated both.
During the past year there has been further substantial progress in improving the RAF's air-to-air refuelling capability, which is of much major operational importance. To supplement the two Victor tanker squadrons, six TriStars have been purchased and, with a squadron of VC10s, are being converted to the tanker role. The TriStar will retain a passenger and freight capability which will greatly enhance the armed forces' strategic mobility.
The Victors, which have been in service since the 1960s, will reach the end of their useful lives by the end of the decade. As a first stage in a replacement programme, three more TriStar 500s have been bought from Pan American World Airways during the past few months. Two of these aircraft have been handed over, the remaining one will be delivered in April.
On the improvements to existing aircraft, I shall deal finally with the helicopter force. The RAF has taken delivery of three Chinook helicopters out of the eight ordered after the Falklands conflict. Exercise Lionheart confirmed that these large helicopters have a very important part to play in support of the Army in Germany.
I have given the House details of the expansion and improvement of the RAF's existing aircraft. I shall now consider future aircraft. First, I should like to refer to the Nimrod airborne early warning aircraft project, which was started by the Labour Government in 1977 and has been continued by the Conservatives. There is no doubt that the


requirement to replace the AEW capability of the current Shackleton force was, and remains, very pressing. The Nimrod airframe has been successfully converted for the AEW role. Unhappily, major technical problems have been experienced in the development of the AEW radar and the associated electronics. We are now in a position where approximately £800 million has been spent or committed for the creation of a force of 11 aircraft. The imperative requirement is to devise the quickest and least costly route to secure the required operational capability of the AEW system. Discussions are continuing with the company to that end.
I cannot at the moment say what additional cost will be involved in achieving the required operational capability but, as of now, our best judgment is that an operational AEW capability for the Nimrod should be achieved in 1987. In the meantime, national AEW cover continues to be provided by the Shackletons. In addition, NATO E3A aircraft are available to provide AEW cover, if necessary, anywhere in the Allied Command Europe area, including the United Kingdom air defence region.

Mrs. Anne Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that the Nimrod failure is the grossest example of the Government's failure to control defence spending?

Mr. Stanley: I agree with the hon. Lady that the project is a very serious example of a major overrun. Major lessons are to be learned from it. This Government have certainly learned such lessons. They are writing contracts now in a very different way from the way in which contracts were written by the previous Administration.

Sir Patrick Wall: Would it not have been much wiser if we had joined the NATO AWACS programme, as many hon. Members suggested at the time?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend has made a very fair point. With the benefit of hindsight, his point is fairly unarguable.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Could my right hon. Friend tell the House whether, when the Nimrod AEW does finally come into service, it will be a very much more sophisticated and capable aeroplane than the system currently in service with the United States Air Force?

Mr. Stanley: I hesitate to draw comparisons in a very sophisticated electronic area. The European AWACs programme is a NATO programme. The British Nimrod programme is a national programme. We retain the benefit of national tasking as a result of going down the Nimrod AEW route. However, I hope that for this kind of expenditure we shall have aircraft that ultimately will be at least comparable to the NATO alternative.

Mr. Wilkinson: In view of the critical importance to the conduct of the air battle of having an effective airborne early warning system, particularly in today's air environment, could not my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of leasing E3 AWACS aeroplances from the United States until such time as our own Nimrod system becomes operational?

Mr. Stanley: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion. As he will be aware, any such leasing arrangement would obviously result in further additional cost, which would

have to be accommodated within the overall defence budget. We should have to consider what expenditure would be involved. That expenditure would not ultimately provide any additional hardware and would have to be considered in the context of the kind of sums involved in finally solving the problems of the AEW radar in the aircraft.
Turning to the European fighter aircraft, as the House will be aware, the Royal Air Force will need to replace its Phantoms and Jaguars in the 1990s. An outline staff target for a possible new European fighter aircraft was agreed by the air forces of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Spain in December 1983: This was subsequently refined into a European staff target. The feasibility studies of the five countries have been completed and are now being evaluated before being reviewed by the Ministers concerned. Along with our partners, we believe that this collaborative venture can succeed. However, there is a long way to go in defining the next stage of the programme, and I think it is unlikely that we shall be in a position to give a further substantive report to the House for some months.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is growing concern within the industry, at management, design and shop floor level, that we are being outmanoeuvred by the French? That is a matter which my right hon. Friend needs to take on board, as does the Secretary of State. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with that point.

Mr. Stanley: Again I note the concern of my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has great commercial experience. He is not a person who is likely to be outmanoeuvred.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: In 1982 the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and I, as two former members of the Royal Air Force, argued the case for a fighter, but it seems that it has slipped and slipped and tonight it has slipped again. The last information I was given was that a decision would be made next month. It appears that a decision will not now be made next month. Can I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is so?

Mr. Stanley: I am not aware of the commitment to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We are still evaluating the feasibility studies of the European fighter aircraft. I now turn to the new basic trainer, because I know that the House will wish to hear the current position on the RAF's basic trainer. The "best and final" offers from the four competing companies have been received and are now being evaluated. We shall reach a decision as soon as we can on the alternatives, which still include the option to retain and refurbish the existing Jet Provost aircraft.

Mr. Stephen Ross: When a decision is made, should not the aeroplane that the RAF most wants be provided if its cost is on the right lines?

Mr. Stanley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the relevant factors will be taken into account. In two to three years' time we shall be bringing into service the new mark of the Harrier, the Harrier GR5, which is being developed and produced in a collaborative programme with the United States. This aircraft is not a rebuild of the existing Harrier but an entirely new design, which will have a very much greater operational capability than its predecessor, while still retaining the Harrier's unique ability to operate


from hidden sites away from its main base and close to the front line. We are planning to procure 60 Harrier GR5 aircraft to replace GR3 Harrier squadrons in Germany.
As for future helicopters, the United Kingdom has decided to enter collaborative feasibility studies with France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands for a future light support helicopter known as NH90. The NH90 could constitute a replacement for the RAF's Puma and Wessex helicopters, which is the subject of air staff target 404. At this stage, however, neither the United Kingdom nor its partners are committed beyond the feasibility studies.
Other options remain for meeting air staff target 404, and the United Kingdom's participation in the NH90 feasibility studies does not rule them out. In particular, the Westland W-30 remains one of the contenders for air staff target 404. Westlands will also take part in the NH90 feasibility studies.

Dr. Keith Hampson: The United Kingdom is keen to take part in such collaborative projects but they do slip a good bit. It is unlikely that the NH90 will be in service before the late 1990s. Surely the Wessex and Puma helicopters could not remain in service until the 1990s and would therefore need to be replaced.

Mr. Stanley: I can assure my hon. Friend that the time scale for the NH90 work is compatible with the need to replace the RAF's Puma and Wessex helicopters. We believe that at this stage it is right to take part in the first stage of an international collaborative project, besides looking at the same time at other options for satisfying air staff target 404.

Mr. Keith Best: If, by means of the NH90 project, a boost is to be given to Westlands which, it appears, is producing an aircraft specifically for air staff target 404 and if in due course it is favoured by the Government, is it not right that another aircraft that was produced specifically for air staff target 412, the Hunting Firecracker, should be similarly favoured?

Mr. Stanley: I do not think that my hon. Friend should think at the moment in terms of "favouring". The Government's view of the situation is that we should look simultaneously at the international possibilities of satisfying the particular requirement, while at the same time retaining the existing options for satisfying AST 404. It does not mean anything more than that.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: rose—

Mr. Stanley: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman but I suggest to the House that, if I give way much more—which I am very ready to do — a good many hon. Members will not be able to make the speeches that I am sure they wish to make.

Mr. Ashdown: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, particularly as he knows that I shall probably be touching on these matters in my speech. His statement that the replacement may well be tangled up with the NH90 will come as a great disappointment to many in the RAF and elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will recognise that, if he were to put that policy into operation, he would find that Westlands would be significantly weaker, as a contributor to the NH90, than it would otherwise be if the Westland 30 were now able to be developed to fulfil AST 404.

Mr. Stanley: I note what the hon. Gentleman said. In relation to the NH90, I used the word "could", not "should". No doubt the hon. Gentleman will wish to develop that point further in his own remarks.
I have concentrated so far on the RAF's re-equipment programme. The process of improving the RAF's capabilities does, of course, go well beyond improvements to the aircraft themselves, and I should like to refer to a few of those other improvements.
With regard to missiles, I have already mentioned the introduction of the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile this year. Improvements to current air-to-air missiles such as Sidewinder and Skyflash are being considered, while the collaborative development of the new generation of advanced air-to-air missiles, ASRAAM and AMRAAM continues.
The procurement of the ALARM anti-radar missile for Tornado is progressing well. The missile is being procured as a fixed price package covering both development and production form BAe Dynamics, the prime contractor. We believe that this programme will prove to be a good example of the benefits that the Department, and therefore the taxpayer, can gain from the use of competition in the procurement process, which in this case led directly to our being able to secure a fixed price contract. One wishes that more contracts had previously been negotiated on a fixed price basis.
An improved version of the BL755 anti-armour weapon will enter service this year. It will substantially improve the RAF's ability to destroy the latest Warsaw pact tanks. The Harrier GR3 and later the GR5 will be equipped with this weapon. Also this year we shall see the introduction of the JP233— the airfield attack weapon—which will significantly improve the Tornado's ability to put airfields out of action.
It is not just aircraft and weapons that the RAF needs; it also requires sensors, electronic counter-measures, communications, and so on. I should like to highlight the United Kingdom air defence ground environment, which provides warning of air attack. UKADGE, as it is known, gathers information from a chain of radars and other sensors.
In the United Kingdom, the network of ground radars and associated command, control and communication systems is being completely replaced. For example, in each air defence sector operations centre, there will be five computers, each of which has more computing capacity than the whole of the system being replaced.
For the future, secure jamming-resistant links between UKADGE, airborne early warning aircraft and Tornado F2, links known as the joint tactical information distribution system, JTIDS — we are not short of acronyms in the RAF—are planned for the late 1980s.
The House will be aware of advances in technology which can be used to reduce the detection of aircraft by enemy air defence systems. We are continuing to investigate ways in which this technology—commonly referred to as "stealth" technology—can be applied to RAF aircraft and missiles.
The protection of our key air assets on the ground is of vital importance. A largely NATO-funded hardening programme is being implemented at 11 of our key operational airfields in the United Kingdom to provide protection for our tactical aircraft and other essential operating facilities.
The first airfield has been completed and the squadrons are operating permanently from the hardened complexes. Work at four other bases is well under way and the programme should be completed by around the end of the decade. The hardening programme at the four RAF airfields in Germany has, of course, already been completed.
At this point I should like to comment briefly on the RAF's budgetary position. I do not, of course, wish to minimise our concern over the difficulties, which I have described to the House, on the Nimrod AEW project, but it must be seen in perspective against the very substantial increases in expenditure that have already been achieved.
When the Government first took office, the defence budget was some £7,500 million. The budget for 1985–86 is over £18,000 million—an increase in real terms of some 22 per cent. During that time, the proportion of the overall budget spent on equipment has risen from 40 per cent. to 46 per cent. — an outstanding achievement, which means that we spend a higher proportion of the budget on equipment than any other NATO country, including the United States.
Over the same period we have spent some £14 billion on air equipment—most of which goes to the RAF—and in the past year alone over £3 billion. Since the Government took office, expenditure on air equipment has risen by over 40 per cent. in real terms. That gives the lie to those who seek to argue that our conventional forces are being in some way neglected by the Government.
Finally, I turn to the RAF's most valuable asset—the men and women in the service. I shall mention first those who serve in the RAF's reserves.
Last year the Royal Auxiliary Air Force celebrated its 60th anniversary. Next year will see the golden jubilee of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. During recent years those voluntary reserves — the RAuxAF in particular—have expanded considerably.
In the last statement on the Defence Estimates we announced that consideration was being given to further expansion over the rest of the decade. A new Auxiliary RAF Regiment squadron will form in April to operate Skyguard anti-aircraft weapons captured from the Argentine forces during the Falklands campaign.
The new squadron will join the six field squadrons which provide local airfield defence, the three maritime headquarters units which support maritime operations, the movements squadron, and the recently formed aeromedical evacuation squadron. Personnel from the last two units made a valuable contribution to Lionheart last year.
I am pleased to say that recruitment in respect of both the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve is most satisfactory and I am most grateful to those who give their time and energy to this invaluable service.

Sir Hector Monro: I am most grateful to the Minister for the praise that he has given to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the other reserves. In the defence White Paper, he has given consideration to a flying role for the auxiliaries. Has any progress been made towards that end? They are most efficient and cost-effective.

Mr. Stanley: That is something that we would very much wish to do, being sympathetic in principle, but at present we do not have the resources to devote to it.

Mr. Wilkinson: How is it that the so-called non-flying services, the Navy and the Army, have flying reserve units, whereas the RAF does not?

Mr. Stanley: Each service has to look at the relative priorities that it will give to its assets of manpower and of finance. With regard to the Army, there was the availability of Scout helicopters, as I recall, which made it relatively easy to form a reserve unit for the Army Air Corps. I am afraid that the same is not true in respect of the RAF. The types of helicopters that are likely to be released for a flying role for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force will require a great deal more maintenance from regular people than the aircraft that have been released, for example, to the Army Air Corps. This is something towards which we are very sympathetic but I am afraid that we have a resource problem at the moment.
There are many ways in which I could highlight the personal qualities of those who serve in the RAF as a career. I would suggest that they are personified in the RAF's round-the-clock search and rescue activities. Over the past year the RAF has recorded 949 incidents in the United Kingdom and 121 overseas in which its search and rescue aircraft have been involved. During the past week alone there have been 30 incidents in which Royal Air Force search and rescue forces have reacted; 26 in the United Kingdom and four overseas.
In addition, Royal Air Force mountain rescue teams provide an invaluable service to the community at large, and over the past year there have been well over 200 incidents in which climbers and walkers have been rescued by RAF teams. The House will know the appalling weather conditions and physical hazards which often face the search and rescue teams, who unfailingly respond with skill, determination and personal bravery of the highest order.
I also want to mention the major contribution that the RAF has made to the relief of starvation in Ethiopia. The appalling problems facing that country are compounded by the remoteness of many of the famine areas. Our aircraft have made it possible to deliver vitally needed relief supplies to some of the worse-hit regions.
The RAF has already delivered nearly 8,000 tonnes of food, medical supplies, blankets and other equipment to those in need, and much suffering and many lives must have been saved as a result. I can vouch personally for the consummate skill the RAF has shown in operating in the most demanding conditions — on rough landing strips, with few or no landing aids, and with the ever-present risk of burst tyres and heavy bird strikes. I am glad to say that with the assistance of a number of Army air-despatch personnel our detachment has now started to air-drop food into particularly inaccessible areas where there is a crying need for relief supplies. The speed and efficiency of our operation has deservedly won for the RAF widespread praise from the relief organisations and the Ethiopian Government.
Finally, after the nearly two years now that I have had the great pleasure of working with the Royal Air Force I am left with the abiding impression of a service that is very expert and very dedicated. Its performance in NATO tactical evaluations, in the international bombing competition, in national and international exercises, in search and rescue, in quick reaction alert scrambles, and in maintaining the Falklands airbridge is eloquent and


visible evidence of the depth of skill and the strength of commitment of the men and women of the RAF. The country is very fortunate to have their service.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: First, I wish to join the Minister in again expressing the sympathy of the Opposition to the relatives and friends of the RAF bandsmen who died so tragically last week. I have already paid tribute on other occasions to the reputation of that band and to the service which those bandsmen gave to this country. They were great ambassadors.
I wish also to pay tribute to the late Lord Cameron of Balhousie, the former chief of air staff and chief of defence staff, who died last month after a long illness. He was a man who served his country well both in peace and in war and who gave distinguished service to both my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and Lord Mulley. It would be wrong to suggest that he necessarily approved of their political ideas and aspirations. Nevertheless, he was a devoted servant and in many ways his contribution to the idea that we must depend less and less on the nuclear alternative strikes a chord on this side of the House and, I suspect, on the Conservative Benches as well. He will be sorely missed in the other place.
I join the right hon. Gentleman in the tributes that he paid to the men who serve in the RAF. Like him, I am lost in admiration for the work they have done in Ethiopia. They have undertaken a tremendous mission and they have brought great credit both to their service and to this country. I only regret that it was found necessary to finance part of their operations out of the budget of the Overseas Development Administration. It should, I believe, have come straight from contingency funding. That apart, they have our admiration—as do, indeed, the men who fly the Hercules airbridge. Those of us who have had the privilege of witnessing the servicing and the mid-flight refuelling taking place know the enormous strength, courage and skill that those men have shown.
When a debate on the RAF is slipped into the business of the House at less than 48 hours' notice, one wonders why the Government have chosen to do this, particularly when the debate starts at the end of a great number of very important statements. One wonders about the degree of importance which the Government give to the RAF or the degree of embarrassment which they feel about their treatment of it.
Although we have had a very impressive catalogue from the right hon. Gentleman of the work that is done by the RAF, the projects under way, and the weapons, missiles and aircraft that are coming into service, it is our contention that he has missed and failed to cover the real problems faced by the RAF and the defence needs of this country.
We understand that on the recent budgeting within the RAF there was an estimated overspend of nearly £400 million. That led to such cheeseparing as the 10 per cent. fuel cut, the reduction in pilot training and the reduction in operational flying. The Opposition believe that what we are likely to see over the years is the stretching of programmes, the postponing of programmes and probably the cutting of programmes. This is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the most impressive re-equipment of

the RAF—perhaps the best that has taken place since the Korean war. So far the brunt of the cuts in the services in order to meet the Trident commitments has fallen on the Navy. Now, we believe, we are to see the RAF's capital projects also damaged by that programme and by the whole of our nuclear posture.
While the right hon. Gentleman claims credit for the great sums of money which have been spent on the armed forces, next year there will be a very different picture indeed. The NATO supplement will be disappearing; the special forces inflation factor recognised by the Treasury will be disappearing; there will be a cut in terms of the moneys which will be absolutely available for the armed forces.
The Minister of State said, with a degree of uncharacteristic candour, when speaking in the Navy debate earlier this Session:
There is one misapprehension under which the right hon. Gentleman is labouring"—
he was referring to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
I should like to draw attention to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a letter to the leader of the Liberal party. He was quite clear about the impact of the Trident programme on the Royal Navy's expenditure. He wrote:
'As for the effect on Royal Navy expenditure I would emphasise that individual Service programmes are not considered in isolation from the remainder of the Defence programme.'
It is therefore not correct to envisage the burden of Trident falling exclusively on a limited area which is now perceived to be the naval budget. We take a tri-service view of priorities in the defence budget." — [Official Report, 29 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 1143.]
If that view of priorities means maintaining concentration upon Trident and our commitment to Trident, the conventional role of the Air Force, as well as that of the Navy and the Army, will suffer.
The Opposition believe that the Government have a choice of either Trident or a credible conventional Army, Navy and Air Force. We do not believe that with the budget that is available we can have both. Nor indeed would we want both. We want to maintain strong conventional forces and to get rid of the Trident nonsense. But, if we are to have an effective Air Force and an effective defence posture, we need a coherent defence policy and an industrial base capable of rational planning into the foreseeable future. We also need to retain the skilled design teams and production workers.
An examination of various sectors of the RAF shows that the Government will not be able to achieve their aim of a coherent defence policy. The Minister has skated quickly and easily over some of the problems of which we are all aware. There is a severe gap in the United Kingdom's air defence network. Our air defence forces consist of between 80 and 90 interceptors, and some of them are very old. If these aircraft are to be brought to bear effectively in a counter-attack on forces from the east, there must be an adequate early-warning capability. Without that, neither the existing force nor the Tornados, which are to come forward, will be a positive and properly effective force. Our sole airborne early-warning capability against low-level attack in the northern sector is upheld by five 30-year-old Shackletons. They are there to protect the nation by giving warning of the approach of a large number of TU22 Backfires and SU24 Fencers, which are all-weather, long-range aircraft. The Shackleton is long overdue for retirement.
We have the Nimrod programme, but we know that it faces many important problems. The time scale which the Minister presented to the House for bringing the Nimrod into operation was in many ways an over-optimistic one. On 2 February, Jane's said:
The problems of the Nimrod AEW are massive, deep and interlinked. While a two or three year time scale has been talked of to solve the development problems, this must only be regarded as a 'best guess'. A sudden cure is unlikely to be found".
We believe that we cannot wait for the problems to be solved without some interim measures being taken.
We are aware of the problems. They were highlighted for many in the "Panorama" programme earlier this week and they are well known to those who have been following the Nimrod programme over the past few years. the problems are real and important. For example, we know that the present computer is too small, too slow and overworked. It cannot handle the targets required of it and it cannot distinguish between targets and clutter. Communications are easily jammed and the radar system cannot hold and trap low-flying fast-moving targets, which is the main purpose of the system. In addition, there are serious problems with the airframe. We are told that with the full radar system, crew complement and a full load, the Nimrod undercarriage cannot take the weight and that it might be necessary to refuel in mid-flight. If these facts are correct—

Mr. Robert Atkins: They are not.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman says that my information is not correct. He is capable of advancing that argument when he contributes to the debate. However, the comments which I have made have been made repeatedly by others. The Minister who is now responsible for the procurement programme has not felt able, except in the most vague terms, to say that the real problems that are being spoken about will he overcome. He cannot guarantee that the original air staff target will be reached for the Nimrod. That is what we want to hear and that is what we should hear.

Sir Patrick Wall: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it was the Labour Government who introduced Nimrod III, against the advice of many who formed the then Conservative Opposition, who wanted to go into the NATO AWACS programme.

Mr. McNamara: That is an interesting statement. The Minister for Information Technology, who was earlier the Minister responsible for procurement, supported the Nimrod system and said that the AWACS system would be a more expensive alternative. He contended that AWACS was not superior to Nimrod and would not be ready at an early date. That Minister, when in opposition, led the powerful campaign that was mounted by Conservative Members in favour of the Nimrod programme. The official Opposition came down strongly in favour of Nimrod. If anything, it was their power which pushed the then Secretary of State to come to the decision which he eventually took. I am not seeking to make a political point although the hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) sought to do so.
We are faced with an important problem in the defence of the United Kingdom. That leads me to the point that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) raised. If we have the problems that I have described—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman and I are ad idem on this

—we should be considering leasing the AWACS programme from the United States for a period until we solve Nimrod's problems, assuming that we can do so. We may have to decide whether there is an alternative. I understand that it is being suggested by some in the industry that we should put the Nimrod kit into the frame of the European Airbus. They claim that many of Nimrod's problems could thus be overcome. At the same time, the aircraft itself would have a longer lease of life than the existing Nimrod airframes.
The Minister skated over the problems of the European fighter aircraft project. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) and I and many others have fought strongly for a sole British Aerospace involvement to meet the RAF's requirement. The Ministry decided in its wisdom that it wanted to go on a European collaborative venture.
We read in today's edition of the Financial Times—Bridget Bloom is a well informed correspondent—that there are two feasibility studies, one from the French and one from the rest. Despite what the Minister has said about the conduct of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, we have been given the impression that the French have been leading us all by the nose. We have been prepared willingly to go along with European collaboration, but the French have been spinning out deliberations on various parts of the project, be it the airframe, the engine or the weight of the aircraft, to try to secure the opportunity to sell and market the Mirage 2000 as much as possible.
That is the real problem, and that is why we are suspicious of the French. I do not blame the French for taking this attitude because they have a good aeroplane and want to sell it. However, we must look after our home base and our other allies.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. He has talked about feasibility studies and two aeroplanes are being considered. Is he aware that the French option is vastly more expensive, especially its engine, than the EFA programme, which is the other option being considered?

Mr. McNamara: Yes, I am well aware of that. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has introduced that issue because my speech will now be two minutes shorter. I am able now to discard some of my papers and thus ensure that more right hon. Members are able to participate in the debate.
Rumours are circulating that, if necessary, the British aerospace industry could go it alone and that we could meet the RAF requirement by a project of our own. I would regard that as a dangerous course of action. I believe that when the pressures come on the Ministry and it is forced to make cuts it will find it easier to make them in domestic programmes than to fall foul of our NATO allies. Secondly, the opportunity to go in with our Tornado partners in a European venture, minus the French, will bring economies of scale. The advantage of that will be overwhelming when compared with going it alone. If there is a large market, it is possible to tailor the kit to produce individual aeroplanes, as it were, to meet the needs of individual countries.
We have considerable experience in dealing with our colleagues in the Tornado programme. Collaboration would enable us to have a strong and viable European aircraft industry. There is a danger that there will be moves


by the United States to gobble up the separate European industries if we have too many go-it-alone projects. The argument for maintaining a European collaborative venture minus the French is overwhelming, so we should disregard any other options.
A matter of some importance to us and to the industry generally is what will happen at Warton if the date for the EFA is pushed back and back. We know that the Tornado is scheduled to end in December 1989 and British Aerospace will need follow-on work immediately if it is to maintain its work force and design teams. If they are broken up, I do not say that we will lose our capacity for the development of high performance fighter aircraft, but it will be far more difficult to maintain and improve that capability. Therefore, it is essential that something be done about it.
The Tornado programme has been stretched and the seventh batch of attrition aircraft is in doubt. Will that batch be supplied to Warton where it is very important to maintain the work force, particularly as the mid-life update has already been cancelled to save money?
There was talk of two major export orders, one to Turkey and the other to the Saudis. We withdrew the export credit on the Turkish order and the Turks could not go ahead. That is surprising, because Turkey is an important NATO partner on a sensitive flank. For the Government to have taken that decision, without consulting our NATO partners to try to reach agreement to help finance the Turks, was regrettable.
What is happening about the Saudi order? Has pressure been brought upon the Government by the United States not to go forward with that order because the planes might be stationed near the Israeli border? Is that why we are not getting it? We know that the French are busily peddling the Mirage 2000 to the Saudis. Our plane would be better able to meet Saudi needs. It is wrong that American or other pressure should prevent a legitimate defence sale. I hope that we shall have more of this type of information later from the Under-Secretary than the Minister of State, with his traditional coyness and disinclination to give information to anybody about anything, was prepared to give us.
No doubt the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Ashdown) will be speaking later about helicopters. I am confused by what the Minister said. There is a real need to replace the Puma and the Wessex, which comprise nearly 100 aircraft. The role of the helicopter on the battlefield is becoming increasingly important, as we saw in the Falklands and in Operation Lionheart. In their development of the operational manoeuvre groups the Warsaw pact countries are seeking to develop the use of the helicopter. An early decision must be made in favour of Westland. A collaborative venture has some of the advantages that I spoke about earlier in regard to the European fighter aircraft. Westland cannot afford to wait for a decision. The Under-Secretary should give us more information about the time scale for the feasibility studies. Westland has run out of orders, but before it comes to the EH101 helicopter for the Royal Navy it is likely to face severe cash flow problems if it does not have an order for the RAF.
Then there is the competition from Sikorsky and Aerospatiale. A failure to give an order for the Westland would be as bad as giving an order to foreign competition. If Westland cannot retain its viability in the period leading

up to the naval order, it may lose its independence, go out of existence or be taken over by someone else. More important, Westland is unique in this country. It is the only competent helicopter firm we have, serving both civil and military users. It is essential in our national interest to keep it in operation. The Government should intervene to ensure positive orders for Westland.

Mr. Best: I respect the hon. Gentleman for his staunch advocacy of a British company. Will he exhibit the same staunch support for the only British contender for the new RAF basic trainer?

Mr. McNamara: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be dealing with that in a few moments because I have a marginal interest in it; 2,000 of the employees live near my constituency.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Taking the Westland case, does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that 1,500 of my constituents work for the British Hovercraft Corporation, which is a Westland subsidiary which does helicopter maintenance work amongst other things? If Westland does not get this order their jobs will be in jeopardy. The unemployment rate in the Isle of Wight is 17·1 per cent. and it would be well over 20 per cent. if that happened.

Mr. McNamara: I hope that the level of 20 per cent. male unemployment will never be reached in the hon. Gentleman's constituency because it would not be pleasant to live with it.
In relation to the sad and sorry story of our basic trainer, if ever there was an example of the Government messing around with British industry, that is it. I shall not dwell long on the fact that they should have gone for a turbo jet rather than a turbo prop because that is water under the bridge. It was a foolish decision. The history of all this is amazing. On 16 March last year, from the original 20 contenders, the Government went down to four. On 18 June they made invitations to tender to British Aerospace, Shorts, Hunting and Westland, with submissions to be in by 18 September. Suddenly, they changed the submission date to 1 October. We all confidently expected a decision by the end of the year. On 11 December the Minister of State for Defence Procurement—incidentally, although we are pleased to see the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, I am surprised that on this occasion the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is not taking part in the debate because RAF debates are often about procurement and procurement policies—

Mr. Stanley: May I point out that my right hon. Friend is on an important overseas ministerial visit to Australia and New Zealand?

Mr. McNamara: I hope that he enjoys the one-day tests, and I hope that we win.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement promised the House on 11 December that a decision would be made on the matter before the next Question Time, which was to be on 29 January. Then, on 18 December, it was said that there was no clear winner, Hunting and Westland were eliminated and best and final offers were to be sought from British Aerospace and Shorts. On 20 December we had verbal inputs about best and final offers, with the completion date to be 21 January, and then 28 January was mentioned. In late December or early January, suddenly Hunting and Westland were brought back. On 4 January a formal letter requested that best and


final offers should be received by 24 January and the bids were to be valid until 31 March. Suddenly on 17 January the Ministry of Defence announced that the completion date would be extended to 31 January, not at the request of British Aerospace. On 24 January, the MoD announced that bids would be valid until 30 April, again not at the request of British Aerospace.
We are entitled to ask why we must have that strange time scale, that opening and closing and extension of dates. What contender felt it necessary to go back time and again to the RAF to have the time scale opened up for it? We know that in terms of its handling, stalling, spinning, aerobatics and flying qualities, the PC9 was entirely suitable for the RAF training role. It was highly regarded. Any modifications that might have been needed could have been carried out within the bid price without any problem. However, we know that the other main contender had to go back on three if not four occasions to Boscombe Down for further reappraisal and training. It has had not one but four engine changes. Therefore, we must ask why decisions were made to try to make particular allowance for that aircraft, the Tucano. We must ask why it is still in the field.
The Tucano does not offer as many jobs as the PC9. In terms of foreign sales, it offers nothing compared with the PC9, particularly when Embraer has made arrangements for sales in South America and Egypt. The planes for the middle east market would be built in Egypt.
Why has the Tucano remained in the field? Jobs are very important for the Northern Ireland Office. That is understandable. I appreciate what it is seeking to do. However, where the plane is to be built in Belfast, unemployment is no worse than it is in Humberside and parts of Scotland. In this bid, we have not heard Shorts making any of the promises that it made to the United States about building the Sherpa in parts of Belfast, which it had to do to achieve that order. I should like the Minister to say whether Shorts—

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: I shall give way in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman is taking up other people's time as well as mine.
I should like the Minister to say whether Shorts has given any undertaking about building the aircraft in the old De Lorean factory in west Belfast, if the company got the order.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in good faith, the Fair Employment Agency accepted Shorts' commitment that in future there would be equal opportunity for all sections of the community to find employment with that company?

Mr. McNamara: I accept that the company said that. We are waiting for the evidence that that will be carried through.
There is also the Foreign Office interest in the matter because of its interest in Brazil. It wants to repay part of the debt that we owe Brazil for its benevolent neutrality during the Falklands war. We understand that. But I suspect that the real reason why Shorts is so interesting to the Government has nothing to do with jobs in Northern Ireland or debts being repaid to the Brazilians. It is purely and simply the ideological reason that the Government

want to privatise Shorts in the same way as they have already privatised British Aerospace. I say that not only because of my natural suspicion of the Department of Trade and Industry with its present head and its record on privatisation, but because of what was said by the managing director of Shorts, reported in the Prufrock column in the Sunday Times on 10 February, which stated:
Then, music to the ears of Norman Tebbit at Industry: 'The Tucano will get us into military aircraft work, which we haven't got at the moment. Having some military work will make us a better prospect for privatisation.'
—said the managing director.
That is what it is all about. That is what Tucano is all about. That is why the RAF might be given an aeroplane with problems with its stalling characteristics, landing characteristics, low-level ride and marginal speed and flying performance. All those things are being sacrificed; and the RAF's interests are being sacrificed to the Government's ideological attitude and the Secretary of State's desire for privatisation. We should not accept that for the RAF. We want the best plane, capable of filling the air staff target in the best way. The only plane that has never had to go back to Boscombe Down for a second, third or fourth re-run, and that has been able to carry through all its training, is the PC9. That is why we expect to have it in the United Kingdom. We want to have it in Brough and Prestwick, and we want the 2,000 jobs over 10 years and the 2,500 other jobs in the industry.
The Minister of State opened the debate in a characteristic manner, glossing over all the difficulties, barely mentioning the problems and suggesting that somehow, with a wave of the magic wand, they will disappear. They will not disappear. They will accumulate. The Government will have to postpone, cut and cancel programmes, not only because the budget for the forces has been overcommitted already, because the Ministry felt that it could spend freely, with the great increases in the budget over the past five years, but, more important, because, as Trident goes ahead, as dollar costs increase and as the pressures increase, the pressures on the RAF and our ability to defend ourselves conventionally will increase. The Government will be condemned by the nation for that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Before I call the next hon. Member, I should like to remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches is now in operation. To assist hon. Members, I shall use a little sign language when they are beginning to run out of time.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: It is a rare occasion when I can agree with at least two points made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The first was his comment about the Tornado order to Turkey, with which I heartily agree. I understand that the Turkish defence authorities have never reneged on any arms purchase. It is an extremely important front-line country and a NATO ally, which we should supply with our products.
The other comment that the hon. Gentleman made was that the debate is likely to be substantially about procurement. He may not know that in my constituency Westland Helicopters has its second largest installation, employing about 1,600 people. It is the largest employer


in my constituency, which has an unemployment rate of about 2 per cent. above the national average, and the highest in the county of Avon.
I should like to refer to the A20, which fills air staff requirement 412. The big criticism that is thrown at that aircraft is that it has never flown. However, I must say to the critics who see that as some sort of a bull point that the Royal Air Force is now capable of making an assessment of an aeroplane that has not flown. In most cases, it has purchased aeroplanes that have not even been beyond the drawing board, let alone tested. With the latest computer technology, that should not be a barrier.
As a result of the retendering process, there has been a substantial change in the status of the A20, the most important point being the offer of the installation of the Garrett engine. I recall being told some horrendous figures about spare parts stocking for the RAF because of the many different types that we still have in operation. One of the advantages of the Garrett engine is that it is already in service in the Jetstream, so, we hope, there will not be a duplicate requirement for many of the spare parts. It is now the fastest and best performing aircraft because of the installation of this high-powered engine. On those two grounds alone, I should have thought that the A20 was very much back in contention.

Mr. John Wilkinson: My hon. Friend will acknowledge that the Royal Air Force Jetstreams are not Jetstream 31s; they are the ordinary Astazon-powered variety.

Mr. Wiggin: I am informed that there is quite a commonality of parts in these Garrett engines. That will be a plus point in relation to the new offer.
The Australians, who are in partnership on this project, have taken this opportunity to reduce substantially their prices. I understand that the price of the A20 is now much more competitive. It may well be, of course, that the competitors have taken the opportunity to cut their prices. I sincerely hope that those factors will weigh with the Government.
British Aerospace and the Shorts contender will be competing for worldwide sales with their partners' less sophisticated aircraft. The A20 will be wholly made within the partnership, and there will be no competition with less sophisticated versions worldwide.
The A20 has the Hawk cockpit and is designed specially to fulfil completely the air staff requirement as written and is not a modified aeroplane. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be bored sick with hearing the various merits of the competitors in this contest. A noble Lord in the other place said that this was the first competitive tender for an RAF aeroplane for 70 years. That seems to be a strange statement, but I cannot think of an example in recent years. This has done the colour brochure printing industry much good, to say nothing of the expensive meals that aircraft manufacturers have found it necessary to give hon. Members. Westland, because of its natural diffidence, has not until now been accustomed, because of its position as a sole supplier, to flying its flag as high as we would wish. I shall send my right hon. Friend the Minister particulars on the A20.
It would be disastrous to believe everything we read in the Sunday newspapers and to assume that Westland is anything other than an extremely prosperous company. It

is true that the company did not make a profit last year, but neither did many other helicopter companies worldwide. There is a huge surplus of helicopters on the world market — the French are virtually giving them away and the Americans cannot sell theirs. This naturally means that Westland is facing a temporary recession.
I cannot believe that there is a thought going through Ministers' minds that they should not keep Westland Helicopters in business. It is vital that we have our own domestic helicopter producer, not just for employment and technology reasons but for strategic reasons. I was privileged to be in the Ministry of Defence during the Falklands war, and I know the work that was put in at short notice to ensure that the various modifications necessary for operating in that specific circumstance were fulfilled in a way that I do not believe any foreign supplier could have done. I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence will ensure that there is sufficient work to keep Westland in business.
If the Government are to have a helicopter system between the time when the Wessex and Puma helicopters are phased out and the time when the NH90 comes into operation, they must act. I believe, from my limited observation of the Concorde and the helicopter co-operative programmes, that the concept of four countries co-operating to make a new type of helicopter before the end of this century is unrealistic. The order for the 85 or so W30s that are required will be a huge shot in the arm for Westland. They will be an extremely important acquisition for our services. I cannot believe, when the cost of the W30 is 30 per cent. less than the cost of the American contender and 45 per cent. less than the cost of the French contender, that any Conservative Government could decide other than to go for the W30. I shall not spell out the huge number of jobs that would be involved. Those jobs would be important to my constituency, to the constituency of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and to the whole of the aviation industry. I hope that my right hon. Friend will soon say that the W30 will move from being an air staff target to being an air staff requirement. I hope that this spring the Government will be firm in what they propose.
I am conscious of the time limit. I should like to go into the arguments about spending on helicopters within the whole of the Ministry of Defence. I believe that the helicopter is a much underrated asset on the modern battlefield and that the Americans have begun to understand that. In the United States there are 14 helicopters for every 1,000 soldiers while in the United Kingdom the figure is 2·7 per thousand. If we had had more helicopters during the Falklands war, the war could have been conducted more efficiently and could have been concluded faster. I well remember the cost of losing the Atlantic Conveyor when the Chinooks went down with her.
My right hon. Friend the Minister includes the Meteorological Office in his responsibilities. I suggest that he should spend a good deal of time seeing what happens in that organisation. Between 1979 and 1985 the cost to the civil aviation industry of meteorological information increased by 225 per cent. It costs £100 to provide the meteorological information necessary for the shuttle to fly between London and Glasgow. For every major aircraft on the United Kingdom register, the airlines have to pay £40,000 a year in meteorological charges. I do not think that I have to persuade the public about the Meteorological


Office, because when I was responsible for answering for its activities, my assurances that the office was doing a good job were guaranteed to make hon. Members shriek with laughter. It is time something was done about the Meteorological Office. If necessary, we should privatise it, but we should not go on spending £50 million or more a year on it, at vast cost to the British taxpayer who does not trust the stuff that comes out of it.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The Minister of State said that the RAF is in the middle of a large re-equipment programme. The RAF is undergoing the most extensive modernisation programme for 20 years, involving the expenditure of £14 billion on major projects in the coming decade. I shall examine some of those projects and then, in the light of the emerging technology which some of those projects reflect, assess the possibility of our armed forces, including the Royal Air Force, placing less reliance on nuclear arms.
According to paragraph 4·10 of the 1984 defence statement,
Later this year, the Tornado F2 will join the RAF and crew training for the operational conversion unit at RAF Coningsby will begin.
In opening the debate a year ago, the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement said that the Tornado F2 would be introduced into service in 1985. I should have liked the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in his opening references to that programme to have been a little more specific. The right hon. Gentleman was more specific on UKADGE, the United Kingdom air defence ground environment. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was being completely replaced, but, along with JTIDS, completion is not expected before the late 1980s. That is disturbing news for hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Three squadrons of Tornado GR1—the strike-attack variant—have now been formed in the United Kingdom, and their introduction into RAF Germany in place of the Buccaneer and Jaguar has begun. Is there any foundation for the suggestion that problems attend the introduction of the GR1 in RAF Germany? The Comptroller and Auditor-General stated in a report in November 1984 that the Tornado collaborative project had
developed a substantial work-sharing imbalance that was losing Britain defence work worth as much as £250 million.
I should like the Minister to comment on that.
The Minister mentioned the AV8B — GR5, a development of the original Harrier. Its avionics will include equipment, principally a forward-looking infra red, known as FLIR, which will give the aircraft a night attack capability. I understand that the United States and the United Kingdom night attack requirements are similar and that the possibility of a collaborative FLIR programme is under consideration. I think that the House would have liked the Minister to say a word about progress on that.
I understand that two firms—the dynamics group of British Aerospace and GEC Avionics—are competing to supply a FUR system to meet the United Kingdom requirements and that the successful contractor will be selected in 1985. The House is looking to the Minister for comment on that also.
On the survivability of priority one airfields in the United Kingdom and RAF Germany, we are looking for a progress report—preferably tonight. That leads us to

the Rapier air defence missile system which, as we know from Falklands experience, is indispensable to the survivability of our airfields. Until the tracked Rapier is fully deployed, will not air defence be inadequate?
In the debate a year ago, I questioned whether the ASRAAM programme was safe. The Tornado 2 will enter service with its Skyflash and Sidewinder missiles. In the early 1990s, we plan to replace them with a new generation AMRAAM and ASRAAM, on which we are working with our American and German allies. The Minister will be aware of my fear that the United States will compete for ASRAAM and that it is, in fact, preparing to take over both programmes.
The Minister will recall my concern that the Government should move beyond the stage of studies into air-launched systems or stand-off weapons for Tornado. With the look-down, shoot-down capability of the Soviet air force and its airborne early warning, and given the dramatic modernisation of the Soviet air force—which the Minister a year ago described as Warsaw pact air superiority—Tornado may not be able to get over the target by the late 1980s, but will have to engage it from a distance.
The defence statement of 1983, paragraph 4, claimed that studies were in hand to assess the conventional armed long-range stand-off missile or complementary systems to manned aircraft. Of course, Tornado was in mind. However, there is no mention of that in the 1984 defence statement. I believe that a memorandum of understanding with the United States on two new programmes—the long-range stand-off missile and the short-range anti-radiation missile— are in hand. Again, I look to the Minister to comment on progress.
I understand that on a visit to RAF Finningley in 1979, the Prime Minister pledged that service men's pay would match that of their civilian counterparts. We all endorse the Minister's closing remarks when he paid tribute to the men of the RAF. Therefore, I am bound to ask whether the pay review body is being guided by that principle of parity with civilian counterparts.
There is general consensus in most west European countries that it is desirable to lessen NATO's reliance on nuclear weapons. To assess more adequately how much is enough to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, it is first necessary to arrive at a consensus on what is meant by the nuclear threshold and what level of nuclear dependence political authorities and publics within the Alliance are prepared to accept.
Of all the various measures for raising the nuclear threshold—that is, for improving conventional defence —one merits special attention because it has received more attention within the Alliance during the past year than any other, and that is sustainability. Lack of adequate sustainability within the NATO forces is, according to Saceur General Rogers, the most serious military deficiency facing the Alliance. NATO guidelines call for 30 days of war stocks — for example, ammunition, petrol and spare parts—all of which apply to the RAF. Yet most countries' war stocks fall well below that level. Therefore, how can any of them claim that they are keeping in touch with public opinion and its increasing sensitivity about the present reliance on nuclear weapons? They are not putting in hand the improvement of conventional forces which would have the effect of raising the nuclear threshold.
Even conventional improvements would not achieve enhanced security in Europe. Negotiated reductions of conventional forces and the implementation of militarily significant confidence-building measures represent an alternative and complementary method of pursuing enhanced security and conventional stability in Europe.
Arms control considerations are often overlooked in the debate on conventional force improvement, but two forums offer enhanced European security through confidence building and reduction of conventional forces — the conference on disarmament in Europe and the mutual and balanced force reduction negotiations. Reconciling the various and sometimes divergent economic, military and political considerations in the current Alliance discussions on improving conventional deterrence is of paramount importance if the conventional force debate of the 1980s is to be positive rather than divisive—that is, if we are to achieve some success in reducing NATO's reliance on nuclear arms.

Sir Patrick Wall: I join with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in his complaint about the timing of the debate. It is quite disgraceful to debate each service on one day only per year and then start after three statements and business questions. I want to make a few points about NATO and finish with a constituency point.
The House will know that the Soviet army attacks on a narrow front but in great depth—the first echelon about 50 km behind and the second echelon about 100 to 150 km behind. Currently, the second echelon would have to be attacked by the Tornado, which I believe would mean a high rate of attrition. I believe that the aircraft could be shot down easily.
The most important thing for the RAF is to have a long-range stand-off missile. The Navy has the Sea Eagle, but the RAF has no long-range stand-off missile. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said, I understand that a memorandum of understanding has been signed between the United States, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. May we be told the approximate production date? It is most urgent.
In the near future, that task will be undertaken by the multiple launch rocket system phase III, with its terminally guided sub-munitions and its much longer range, by the Copperhead laser-guided shell and by the Assault Breaker that will release the Tornado for its proper job, which is to counter the enemy air forces.
The second most important issue is to destroy the enemy airfields after the first strike has left. That can be done by the JP233, but again that is not stand-off. I do not believe that the three Tornado aircraft coming in and dropping JP233 could survive. In future the cruise missile and possibly a conventional ballistic missile such as the Pershing I, which has been withdrawn, might be used for that purpose. Aircraft are in short supply and should be used for countering the enemy aircraft threat. They must be safeguarded as much as possible when on the ground. The Nunn-Roth amendment led to an increased expenditure on NATO infrastructure—$7·8 billion was allocated recently, among other things, to strengthen

shelters for the RAF and allied air forces. Since 1951, NATO infrastructure has provided 229 runways in Europe, which is a very good record.
We have already discussed Nimrod III compared with AWACS. I admit that many Conservative Members wanted Nimrod III, although many others advocated the NATO AWACS. This is a lesson for us. These international projects are sometimes much more expensive, but they are brought to fruition at a reasonable cost, are difficult to cancel, and do not give rise to the cost escalation that is bound to arise with Nimrod III.
Another means of detecting enemy aircraft is NIS-NATO identification system — which in my day was known as IFF. For years different air forces have had different identification systems. It has been said time and again that RAF aircraft could be shot down by our allies unless we had a common standard. I understand that the United Kingdom, France and Germany have agreed on a common system, but that the Americans are advocating another. I hope that these systems will be standardised, because it is not much good having two systems in the Alliance.
As to the European fighter, I merely remind the House that the Americans are at the same time developing their own advanced tactical fighter. It is a different type and has a longer range, and I do not believe that the European fighter will have much chance of success unless there is some arrangement with the Americans on comparability, common sales and so on. ASRAAM and AMRAAM have also been mentioned. Both are currently in difficulty. The European contribution, ASRAAM, has been held up twice by Germany's failure to produce the cash on time, although I now gather that it is again on line. This time the American AMRAAM has gone wrong and it is being examined by the Secretary of State.
I remind the Government that Ford aircraft in America are going ahead with the AIM9M, which it hopes will take the place of both ASRAAM and AMRAAM if they go wrong. Therefore, we had better look to our laurels.
SDI is purely a research project, but it will cost $26 billion. It is non-nuclear defence. If it succeeds, it is expected to bring down all ballistic missiles, including the SS20, SS21, SS22 and SS24 — the shorter-range battlefield weapons. SDI intercepts at the boost stage before the decoys are deployed and when it can home in on the heat. It also intercepts at the mid phase and at the terminal phase. I stress again that it is non-nuclear—

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Sir Patrick Wall: I would rather not give way as I am short of time.
SDI depends largely on laser particle beams and kinetic energy, some of the lasers being reflected by mirrors. It also depends on very high speed integrated circuits—the most modern computer technology.
Are we keeping up to date with this research? The Prime Minister mentioned this in Washington only yesterday, but I should like to know whether we are keeping up to date with the computer technology which is an essential part, not only of SDI but of all advanced technology affecting the RAF.
The PC-9 will be built largely in my constituency. It is favoured by the RAF—at least that is what we are given to understand. I also understand that 85 per cent. of the aeroplane will be built in this country as well as 75 per


cent. of the equipment—the most valuable part of any aircraft. There are joint marketing arrangements with the Swiss and, most important, this is a package with the Hawk. If countries buy the PC-9, they will buy the Hawk. I am pretty certain that the Swiss will buy the Hawk if we choose the PC-9.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to purchase the new trainer should be based on what the RAF believes best meets its purposes, not on employment considerations or the desirability or otherwise of floating a company on the market?

Sir Patrick Wall: I agree with my hon. Friend. I remind the House that Shorts has just won a lucrative aircraft contract which will keep it pretty well occupied for some time, and that Humberside and the Prestwick area of Scotland could benefit by about 2,000 jobs if we were to order the PC-9. I commend to the Government early-day motion 217 which has been signed by more than 100 hon. Members. I very much hope that our choice will be the best aircraft, the one which the RAF wants.
I do not expect the Minister to answer any of my latter points, but I should like him to reply to my comments on NATO, IFF, and long-range stand-off missiles, which will be vital in any battlefield of the future.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) tempts me to discuss the SDI and the broader questions that are now before us. However, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if, in view of the time, I concentrate on one issue—Westland, which is of special interest to my constituency.
I should declare an interest, apart from my constituency interest, in that my only shareholding in British industry is in Westland. It is a modest sum of £20 which enables me to attend the annual general meeting. It is certainly no speculative, profit-making deal.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on the AST404, the replacement for the Wessex and Puma helicopters. The AST404 was originally due in 1987–88, but the in-service date has now been extended to 1991. Recently, it may even have been put on the back burner—the so-called regulator—with no funds yet identified. That causes concern.
The RAF's need for a replacement for the Wessex fleet is unquestionable and urgent. About that there can be no doubt. The Wessex fleet now supports our troops in Northern Ireland, but in time of war would be used to support our forces on the central front. These aircraft are 26 years old, and were designed in the 1950s. I was disturbed when the Minister said that perhaps this aircraft would be run on to the NH90, because the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) rightly identified the fact that these collaborative projects almost never meet their targeted in-service delivery date. The Minister may talk about 1994 or 1995, but he knows as well as I do that the NH90 will probably not become available until the year 2000. Are the Government really asking the RAF to use aircraft — the main element of its fleet — whose design is 50 years old? We have good reason to wonder how long an essential component of our defence can depend on these clapped-out machines. They are good machines for their age, which have done sterling service

in their time. I have had good reason to know that, having flown to and from active service in them in Borneo, Aden and Belfast. However, these machines need replacing soon —indeed, now.
As other hon. Members have said, the helocopter's role in the battlefield is that of a force multiplier. It should be used to make better use of our forces. That is vital and is well recognised elsewhere. If there is an imbalance with the disposition of Soviet forces in central Europe, which I accept, we can overcome that through the use of helicopters.
As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare also said, other nations seem to be much more aware of this than the Ministry of Defence. A typical American corps in central Europe will have 800 helicopters at its disposal, whereas a typical United Kingdom corps will have 180. All defence experts now recognise the increased and growing role of the helicopter in the battlefield. To meet that requirement, the Government have set up air staff target 404. There are three contenders, but only one is British—the Westland W-30. The W-30 meets in full, admittedly with no frills or fur trimming, the precise requirements laid down by the RAF. Unlike other competitors, the W-30 is designed to meet the need fully but not excessively. That is why it seems that the costs will be about 30 per cent. lower than those of foreign opposition. Running costs will also be lower.
We have made a considerable investment in the W-30, which is the derivative from which Westland will build its aircraft. The Department of Trade and Industry has invested £40 million in it, and Westland has done an almost pound-for-pound matching investment of about £35 million. There have been further investments in the blades and gearboxes. My community and that of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare have also invested their ingenuity and skill in that aircraft. That stands at stake on the Government's decision.
Considerable opportunities also stand at stake. Exports may be more than double our sales to the RAF. If the RAF's imprimatur is on the aircraft and we can say to other countries that the British Government have bought the aircraft, we may be able to sell twice as many as we would supply to the RAF. That would give us a prime position in the European collaborative deal, the NH90.
Westland is a committed collaborator, as the EH101 shows. The W-30 would provide 6,800 man years work, which is about 1,000 jobs in production, 400 in support, and a further 2,000 in the other British industries that supply Westland. A typical helicopter today is only 50 per cent. in house, and the other 50 per cent. is bought in from other industries all over Britain. Therefore, there would be about 4,000 jobs overall. We would maintain a major British defence industry in a strong condition. We would maintain a stand-alone capacity to make our own helicopters. We would also maintain in the best condition a firm which is about to produce a key new helicopter, the EH101. There is a necessity to build a bridge from the present position to the EH101 in the early 1990s.
I recognise the Secretary of State's problems, as all hon. Members must do. They may be generated by Trident. We recognise that he now faces a matrix of difficult decisions. I remember calling Trident "that cuckoo in the nest", and he is now undoubtedly finding good reasons to elbow other projects out of its way. I do not wish to make a political point about this, but Trident


creates difficulties for him. We recognise how he will be tempted to delay decisions to a future date when he will have more room for manoeuvre.
However, I caution the Minister, in case he considers delay a mechanism for solving his problems, that the consequences are severe. The RAF needs will remain unmet in the key area of our defence. That will inevitably push the replacement helicopter into a position where it clashes with other capital programmes. Delay will weaken our capacity for export from Westland and other British industries. Westland will not have the bridge to secure itself a future position. It will be tied into the NH90 collaborative helicopter in a weaker position than would otherwise be the case.
If the Secretary of State cannot commit himself to a date, we shall be disappointed, although we shall understand why. If only he would commit the Government to choosing the W-30 on principle, we can, perhaps, live with uncertainty about the date, because we shall at least have one foot on the ground and something that we can use to encourage exports. With that, Westland's hand will be strengthened for exports.
The Secretary of State realises that he is dealing, not with a weak company, but with one whose work force and management have shown themselves capable of taking courageous and tough decisions to enable them to survive in an increasingly competitive market place. The Secretary of State is dealing not with an ailing industrial sector, but with a world sector with an assured growth for the future. He is not dealing with a company that has no future orders. On the contrary, the company has an assured future in the EH101, which is the greatest single helicopter project in which the company has taken part. He is dealing not with a company that cannot supply the essential needs of the RAF less expensively than others, but with a company which can supply a British buy from a proven record. We know from the experience in the Falklands that it can supply the goods—and, in this case, supply them at a cost 30 per cent. less than its competitors.
In asking the Minister for a decision now or soon, Westland is not seeking charity. It has no need of that. It does not want gifts or handouts. It wants the Government to make a decision so that it can plan its future, get on with the job, and do the thing that it knows best—building the best helicopters in the world for the RAF's needs.

Mr. Robert Atkins: There is a lot that I want to get through and in view of the time limit, I hope that I do not gabble too much. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) about the sale of Tornados to Turkey. We are talking about £1 billion of export orders. I thought that Farnborough existed to deal with our defence sales among other matters. I can do no better than to quote from a letter I sent to the Prime Minister. I said:
As you have indicated on many occasions, the British aerospace industry is a shining example to the rest of the country in its design, production, marketing, delivery, profits, workforce and general management. Is it to suffer at the hands of the Governments of France, U.S.A., and others, in that they bend over backwards to support their aerospace industry in competitive foreign sales, or can they be assured of the necessary financial assistance equivalent to the predatory financing being

offered elsewhere? Is it to lose out to the Mirage 2000 taking up sales which should be Tornados or E.F. A.'s or even a national version of a new fighter, breaking up design teams and the backs of many sub-contractors, or can the situation be retrieved as a matter of urgency?
Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I want to talk largely about the European fighter aircraft. It has been the subject of a continuing saga under various mnemonics and titles since I was elected in 1979. There will soon be a meeting — it causes me and my constituents some anxiety — to discuss the feasibility plan, development and production of the EFA for 1985 onwards. I was sufficiently worried about it to raise the matter with the Secretary of State in the House. He recently wrote me a letter and confirmed that there may have been
a slippage of perhaps 4 weeks on the timescale we had in mind last summer. We realise however that a further period will be needed for officials to assess the results of the studies, for the Air Staffs to consider the capability offered, for National Armaments Directors to prepare the ground for a Ministerial Meeting and for us to take a view on the military, financial and industrial aspects.
As I predicted, and said earlier in an intervention, France is at the nub of the argument. A French industry spokesman said:
It is important to join forces with the UK, not because of the physics but because of the money required for development." However, Emile Blanc, the national French armaments director said:
"We are taking steps to ensure that France controls technology in areas where we lead other nations."
I have a document from the company, for whom I seek to speak because of my constituency interest. It states:
British aerospace industries would prefer a national solution to the new fighter requirement.
The company believes that it will be at no extra cost to the percentage of the United Kingdom collaboration, which is proposed within EFA because of the great cost of the French aviation industry, to which I also referred in an intervention. The document states:
British aerospace industries would prefer a national solution to the new fighter requirement for the RAF in view of the greater opportunity to utilise the industries resources and technology, as developed by the EAP with the substantial industrial involvement in that programme.
However, they recognise the value of a major collaborative programme with the enlarged overall programme and long term stability which would ensue, and consequently have co-operated fully in the five nation feasibility study for the EFA which has just been submitted to the five Governments.
In any programme which hopefully will follow on from these studies they would expect the following aspects to be respected by HMG to safeguard the UK national position and the continuing viability of the aerospace industry.

1. The weapon system resulting from the programme must meet the minimum operational target of the RAF.
2. There must be equality of worksharing with GE and FR during the development phase, recognising that subsequent adjustments can be made in production to reflect the numbers of aircraft bought by each nation.
3. Workshare arrangements should apply separately to airframe, engine, and equipments.
4. There should be equality of management authority and responsibility between the five nations with no overt leadership by one nation for either airframe or engine.
5. A central NATO agency should be established with authority to place contract on the industries.
6. To ensure maximum penetration of the export market it is necessary to get aircraft into service as soon as possible and no later than January 1995."

Anything that does not meet those criteria will be wholly unacceptable to the company, management and work force, to the British aerospace industry and to those


of my constituents who work in it. It will also be wholly unacceptable to me. I make my position quite clear. I can do no better than to quote from some of the recent remarks made about this project in various trade journals. For example, the national aerospace organiser for TASS says:
We don't seem to know what we are doing or where we are going; that's bad for Britain's defence. Tass is concerned that the UK will come out 'the worst' from any negotiations because there appears to be an absence of policy as to what we want". The editorial in Flight International, the United Kingdom magazine on aviation, says:
Neither German nor British governments have shown a willingness to put even their own nation's interest first, and departmental pride is allowed to inhibit possible spending… France has also taken an export-led stance, and geared the development of new aircraft to the potential export market, without allowing that consideration to govern France's own military requirements.
Dornier and Northrop are continuing to work on the ND-102 project as a fall-back position, because, as the vice-president and chief designer of Northrop said:
We think there is enough chance [that the EFA program will fail] that we want to continue to be prepared for the opportunity if it comes.
Aviation Week and Space Technology, the leading American magazine, says:
U.S. government officials contemplating the difficulties are convinced the entire program will never get off the ground. The skeptics at this point have a reasonable bet.
That shows the concern that has been expressed about the EFA project. The importance of the project cannot be underestimated. I know what the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement did, what my hon. Friend the Minister is doing—as he has a constituency interest—and, above all, what the Secretary of State is doing. but the industry's perception is that the French are outmanoeuvring us. They have indicated that Dassault wants 46 per cent. of the airframe. People at all levels of industry tell me that the French are getting away with murder. I am not prepared to tolerate it any longer. I am fed up with urging the project and with apparently not getting very far. The Government and the industry together must get a grip to ensure that that plane gets off the ground. If we cannot get a collaborative project, which is what we all want, we must have a national project.
The situation in relation to jobs, technical expertise, the world leadership on offer within the British aerospace industries, and in relation to the strategic and industrial requirements demands that that project goes ahead now. It must not be delayed any longer. I, the Royal Air Force, hon. Members generally and, above all, the British aerospace industry, including my constituents, demand that it should happen now. I hope that the Government and the House will recognise the urgency of the project.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I shall return later to the challenging points made by the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), as I agreed with everything that he said. I do not always agree with him, but on this occasion I agreed with him in toto.
The Minister made some very unfortunate remarks in his opening statement. He referred to Phantoms bought from the United States, modified Hawks, updated Buccaneers, stretched aircraft., reborne Shackletons and reincarnated Jet Provosts. In many ways he reminded me of Ron Moody when he appeared in the film musical of "Oliver Twist". Even though I am a Welshman, I shall not sing, but the phrase that I have in mind is:

We are reviewing the situation".
That is about all that the Government do. If reviews were aircraft, the RAF would be well off. But, in effect, the Department sits back and fails to make any decisions. If the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) had been in the Chamber I think that he would have agreed with my next point. After all, I wonder what would have happened if Mitchell had not built the Spitfire or its prototype for the Schneider trophy, possibly even before the Minister was born. We did not have enough Spitfires in 1939, but at least we had them. In 1995 will there be any aircraft, or will there be just another review?
I should be delighted to see the Secretary of State in a flak jacket standing by an advanced fighter ready for 1995. But I believe that we are standing in the shadow of Trident. It is influencing events and preventing decisions from being made. I need not rehearse the points made by the hon. Member for South Ribble, because he spoke well on behalf of his constituents and the industry. I commend him on that and I agree with everything that he said. It is about time that the Department made a decision.
There was an interesting development this week. Some hon. Members will know that I have been fighting a battle to get the Super 748 over to the Caribbean. But I believe that that decision was bedevilled by a Frenchman, who was a Commissioner. I had a fascinating reply from the Prime Minister this week, indicating that she intends to find out exactly what went wrong with that deal. The 10 nations wanted it, the airline wanted it, the bank wanted it but the French said no.
As the hon. Member for South Ribble has said, it is about time the French were told that they should either be a partner, and an equal partner at that, or should let us go alone. This is no time for being mealy-mouthed, and there is no point in dressing up and being photographed. This is the time for action. The French must be told that if they want the European fighter, they must collaborate on a fair basis, with the Brits being allowed to maintain their technology and work force as well.
Let us consider this renovated Jet Provost, Pilatus or Tucano. Why do we not return to the simple concept of letting the RAF choose its own aircraft? It is the RAF that flies them, and not the Minister or the Secretary of State. The RAF knows its requirements. When I was in the RAF, I was given a very good aircraft. I was very grateful to the manufacturers. I had a Mosquito, the best 'plane of its day. The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that the skilled members of the RAF have the best aircraft available for training as well as operational purposes. That is his prime duty. There should be no more reviews, dilly-dallying or finger trouble. I am reminded of old Pilot Officer Prune who was given an award for failing to do things on time. He was awarded the Highly Derogatory Order of the Irremovable Finger. The Minister must ensure that he is not given that order. I shall certainly present him with it, if he does not make the right decision. I am sure that hon. Members will associate themselves with my comments.
I turn to Woodford and to the importance of maintaining a skilled work force. It is the last place in the United Kingdom where a large-scale military aircraft can be built. There is no point in the Secretary of State using one of his favourite terms—"It's front loading." That is rubbish. If we are to sustain a large aircraft building capability, Woodford must be supported.
I shall obtain favour all round tonight, because I now turn to the subject of helicopters. It must be the W-30. We


must maintain the helicopter capability in this country. It is sometimes assumed that the west country is an area of full employment, but is not. The work force can build the aircraft or helicopter that is desired, and that will at the same time provide employment, and sustain and maintain the technology that we need in this country.
The Minister spoke about the search and rescue scheme, but there is something else that the RAF could do with its helicopters. It could involve itself more and more in perinatal care and in the new-born baby. The RAF could help to take babies to special units quickly. That is humane work and requires skilled training.
I have been speaking of conventional defence. Some of the delays have been occasioned by the awesome burden of Trident. I believe that implicitly.
The Minister must ensure that the RAF gets its preferred aircraft. The overwhelming need is to sustain British technology in the aircraft industry. The Minister must preserve the skills and initiatives of the work force. No more reviews. Action, please.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In many ways the debate has been untypical. Usually in debates on the Royal Air Force we discuss the depth of pile in the carpets at RAF Germany and whether English programmes are shown on television there. Constituency preoccupations have not dominated this debate. That is to the good.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State set the right tone when he concentrated on the operational capabilities of the 'service and its equipment. I want to take the debate into the future—into the next century and beyond. This is the appropriate time to do so.
This month two leading representatives of our European Alliance have spoken about the significance of President Reagan's strategic defence initiative, launched in his famous speech on 23 March 1983. Chancellor Kohl in his Wehrkunde speech at Munich and our Prime Minister in her speech yesterday to both Houses of Congress welcomed the idea of European industry participating in the research programme.
I should like to examine how the strategic defence initiative and the new technologies for the military utilisation of space will affect RAF strategies, its order of battle, procurement policy and manpower planning. The most important element concerns the men and women of the RAF.
Lord Trenchard was one of the greatest men of our century in terms of the work that he did towards the creation of an independent Royal Air Force and for building a structure which would endure. That structure endured through the second world war and proved itself in that conflict. Basically it endured until the late 1950s and early 1960s. In the 1950s the flying squadrons of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force were disbanded and in the 1960s changes were made in the training of officers. They were profound alterations from the old Trenchardian mould.
For the next century we must attract people who will be capable of servicing and manning the space-based systems that will ensure our deterrents, and our defence. For that we need a new tri-service cadet college to train people in the appropriate military sciences. I have always

said that the place to do so should be at Greenwich and that when cadets have completed their training there they should go on to their respective academies and that for the Air Force it should be Cranwell. At present Cranwell courses are short and not appropriate to the future scientific and professional training required. The United States Air Force academy has a course lasting four years and is of the highest calibre.
I do not wish to decry the role of graduates from our universities and colleges. They will continue to be essential, but we need a new, highly professional, properly trained stream of permanent commissioned entrants.
In mid-career we must enhance the role of the college of air warfare at Cranwell. It already provides an astronautics course. We should carry it further so that the course ultimately involves space experience. We should approach the task in co-operation with our European allies.
We and our European allies must co-ordinate our whole approach to the strategic defence initiative. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown the way forward in his industrial approach. We must resolve our military role. First, we shall have to deploy in Europe point defence systems against ballistic missile attack. There is nothing new in the concept of protecting from pre-emptive or first strike our own deterrent forces and our centres of population. We did it in the 1950s and 1960s when Fighter Command protected the bomber bases of the V force. The point defence systems will be the easiest component of the SDI to evolve and I believe that they will be the first to be deployed.
More futuristic elements are involved also. I refer to the means of intercepting ballistic missiles in their boost, post-boost and mid-course elements of flight. Those aspects of SDI will require space-based systems. Some could be manned, but certainly they will have to be serviced and maintained. The shuttle has shown that this is possible. It is already possible to retrieve, maintain and repair satellites in space. The Royal Air Force and its personnel will have a role in that.
We must examine too how we are to deny to a potential enemy the eyes and the ears that control military operations. Increasingly those eyes and ears are satellites. The Soviets have already deployed a rudimentary first generation anti-satellite system. They are keen that the United States should not fully develop and deploy their own anti-satellite system. I have no doubt that the Americans will pursue its development—and they will be right to do so. I hope that the system will be operational shortly with the F-15.
The ability to intercept and destroy satellites will not be unique to the American component of our Alliance. We Europeans will have a similar requirement. I hope that the air staffs of our respective countries are addressing themselves to the problem already. I believe that the Tornado F-2 and, ultimately, the European fighter aircraft will be the appropriate launch vehicles for such a system. Command and control operations will also be required. That will be costly and is another matter which must be addressed.
We have dealt with today's problems, the problems of the 1980s and we have looked to the 1990s. There is no doubt that in the next century the RAF will have a spatial role. I hope that is so. The motto of the service is not "per ardua ad caelum" but "per ardua ad astra". In that spirit I hope that the Secretary of State and his colleagues will


encourage the Service and Civil Service to examine the changes required within the RAF to meet the challenges of the space age.
I hope that the strategic defence initiative, which has undoubtedly brought the Soviets to the negotiating table again and which offers some hope that the pattern of mutually assured destruction will be broken, will mean that there will be greater security for our peoples. I trust that we shall play our full part in this process and that the RAF will play a leading role.

Mr. William McKelvey: As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said, this is a strange debate in some ways as hon. Members with such diverse views as the hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) apparently agree and almost feel mutual admiration. I hope that the Minister is aware of the pressures that might be being applied.
I shall confine my speech to the urgent need to provide the RAF with a new trainer. I trust that the Minister was not being serious when he suggested the refurbishment of the present trainer as a credible alternative. I hope that the laughter that went around the Chamber when he said that was not nervous laughter, but a sign that the House has discounted such an alternative.
I speak on behalf of all hon. Members from Ayrshire, except the Secretary of State for Scotland, when I say that there is only one aircraft that should be the replacement for the trainer—the British Aerospace PC9. In a debate such as this, there is a danger of overstating the case, so I shall not go into detail about its technical qualities. I do not wish to denigrate other aircraft as, in their way, they are all first-rate, but the PC9 shines out like a throughbred.
An important feature of the PC9 is that it meets all of the RAF's requirements. The Minister and others have paid respect to the skill of the RAF. They should seriously consider giving the RAF the airplane aeroplane that it wants. The PC9 can meet the required specifications with minimal changes whereas its competitors are apparently having some difficulty. Why are there delays? Some of us suspect that the PC9's competitors are being given extra time to reach the specifications required.
Moreover, the PC9 is the best industrial solution. Several hon. Members have spoken of the influence on their constituency if the PC9 were chosen. I have a constituency interest in it. Although Prestwick is not in my constituency—it is 11 miles away in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Scotland — engineers and aircraft fitters based at Prestwick live throughout Ayrshire. In the initial stages, the PC9 can provide 150 jobs where the average rate of male unemployment is about 22 per cent. That number could be extended to 250. That is important to an area that has just lost a British Steel Corporation foundry with the loss of 280 jobs.
Despite the claims of its competitors, the PC9's airframe is 85 per cent. British and I understand that about 90 per cent. of the technical equipment is British. The Minister must consider all of the factors which make up the equation, but the RAF has said that it wants the PC9, it will provide about 2,400 jobs for British industry, it is almost wholly British-built and it would provide jobs throughout the United Kingdom. The best craftsmen in the world will be employed in building it. I would be astonished if the PC9 was not chosen.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) said about the PC9. It might surprise him that my constituents have an interest in it as Ferranti is involved.
It would be churlish if I did not say that I spoke in the House last year arguing that Ferranti should get a contract for the GR5 Harrier. In the past few days, my right hon. Friend the Minister has awarded that contract. The significance of it is the relationship with the European fighter — because Ferranti will now be in a much stronger position to compete for the avionics of that fighter. Recognition of the work of Ferranti as a world leader has been enormously strengthened by my right hon. Friend's decision, for which I thank him very much.
My right hon. Friend the Minister said that he hoped that collaboration will succeed, but there are serious potential difficulties with France. I understand that the British aerospace industries want a partnership that involves equality of work-sharing and of management authority. During discussions, France might prove to be less genuinely interested in that policy than us. I appreciate that Minister Hernu might do his best to deliver, but the power of the French industrial and trade union lobbies, especially in regard to the Dassault company, are so powerful that the French will be unlikely to accept a genuine partnership.
I hope that my right hon. Friend is right to think that collaboration will succeed but, in the event of it being difficult to get a genuine partnership, I hope that he will have readily available an alternative policy and plan for a national solution to preserve the structure and capability of the British aerospace industry. "Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1984–85" said recently of the European fighter:
With the first flight scheduled for the far future of 1990–91, there are many people, notably in the USA, who expect it to be abandoned long before then, in the case of five-nation failure to compromise.
I applaud my right hon. Friend's will to make it succeed but I hope that he will be prepared if the worst comes to the worst.
On the PC9, the argument advanced earlier that the view of the Royal Air Force should prevail carries weight. The employment arguments are relatively evenly balanced, although we look forward to hearing the arguments to be put forward by hon. Members from Northern Ireland. Obviously it would lead to more employment in Northern Ireland but by the same token it would probably lead, over the years, to less employment in British Aerospace.
I believe that what the RAF want is the argument which should carry most weight, but I do not wish to conceal from the House that I have an interest in the matter. In the past I have, as an author, written about Prestwick. Moreover, when my father was a Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency he helped to found Prestwick and the Scottish aviation industry. It began as a very modest project. However, after a series of mergers it became the Scottish division of British Aerospace.
As it nears its 40th anniversary I hope the House will forgive me if I say that there could be no stronger recognition of and encouragement to the work force at Prestwick than if Prestwick obtained this order. It would reinforce the belief of the work force that it has a continuing and permanent contribution to make to the


industry as the headquarters of the Scottish aviation industry, and that is no more than the RAF deserves and desires.
Finally, I wish to refer to the restoration of the flying role of the auxiliary air force. It could have either a search and rescue role, or a training capacity or be used as reinforcement. It would be very good for morale if those who have served for many years in the Royal Air Force, who have developed considerable expertise and who wish to retain a connection with the RAF could play such a role in the auxiliary air force. As and when economic circumstances permit, I hope that the Minister will accede to that request.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Owing to the splendid co-operation of hon. Members, there is no longer any need for me to enforce the 10-minute limit upon speeches. Nevertheless, I still appeal for brief contributions.

Mr. Roy Beggs: May I place on record the admiration and appreciation of the Ulster Unionists for the excellent service given by the men and women of the Royal Air Force, both nationally and internationally. The Ulster Unionists believe that the RAF should be provided with the best basic trainer that is available for training its pilots. The Government are aware of the importance of job creation and we would be pleased if such a project were to come to Northern Ireland. I recognise that a very fine balance has to be drawn and that there is an equal need for jobs to be created at the Shorts factory in Belfast and on the mainland. However, such a decision must not be made simply on social grounds. If that were the case, I believe that Northern Ireland would outstrip all contenders. Unemployment in Northern Ireland stands at 21 per cent., with 50 per cent. male unemployment in some areas.
My duty as the Ulster Unionist spokesman on trade and industry is to draw to the attention of the House what I believe to be a scandalous attempt by British Aerospace to force the so-called merits of its aircraft upon all and sundry, not only by means of an expensive and continuous campaign in the national press but also by means of an organised invasion of this House through The House Magazine.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I cannot allow that remark to pass unnoticed. I wrote to the chairman of Shorts congratulating him upon his campaign. I even received a Christmas card from him with a Tucano on it. I think that the Shorts campaign has been magnificent.

Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for such a tribute. However, those hon. Members who have listened to the whole debate will probably have come to the conclusion that I am the lone ranger in this exercise. The strength of the case presented by Shorts has contributed to the recognition paid to it by English, Scottish and Welsh hon. Members who support the Shorts motion. I question whether it is right that a company which is 48 per cent. funded by the public should spend such vast sums of money upon advertisements in the national press.
Those who live in Northern Ireland know only too well the true value of money. We should prefer to pitch performance and price against publicity and pressure. We do not believe that ideological considerations should

prevail when a decision is finally made. However, on performance and price we are prepared to accept the outcome. I believe that the methods used by British Aerospace in its efforts to win this contract are quite obnoxious. An attempt has been made to misrepresent the qualities of other aircraft. Unfortunately some, though not all, hon. Members have swallowed some of the information that has been peddled. However, I am confident that such unworthy tactics will not influence right hon. and hon. Members and that they will not be fooled.

Mr. McKelvey: The hon. Gentleman's remarks about British Aerospace are not true. If I had to condemn the management of British Aerospace I should say that it has lagged sadly behind Shorts, vis-à-vis Shorts' Tucano. There has been consistent and persistent lobbying from the trade union movement.

Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is quite right and proper that on behalf of their members in British Aerospace factories the trade unions should make representations to those hon. Members who represent constituency interests. However, I am in a unique position. I do not have a constituency interest to put forward. When we apply the rather scarce commodity, truth, to the debate we find out why the advertising campaign by British Aerospace is necessary. In the best and final offer stage, Short Brothers produced a package which shines through the smokescreen thrown up by British Aerospace.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: My hon. Friend has referred to a smokescreen. Could that be due in part to the fact that the new Garrett engine that is expected to be fitted to the Tucano is equal, if not better in terms of speed and rate of climb, to the PC9?

Mr. Beggs: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but since we are discussing truth I do not intend to exaggerate. All I would say is that the Shorts Tucano has always met the requirements of the Royal Air Force, even when it appeared that the specifications had been increased. Indeed, the Garrett engine performs in every sense up to the level of the PC9. I said that I would not boast but the facts are there for all those who are responsible for examining the details to see. However, when the running costs are considered, the Shorts Tucano has cheaper running costs than its main rival. The life cycle costs of the Tucano are substantially lower than those of the PC9. There is a further bonus in the fact that spares for the Tucano are much cheaper than those for its main rival.
Claims that only one aircraft fully meets the RAF performance requirements for its new basic trainer are simply not true; nor is the suggestion that employment created by the PC9 will be greater than that created by its competitors. As for the claims for a perfect marriage between the Hawk and the PC9, I believe that hon. Members and the British taxpayer will be more influenced by and interested in the facts than in such speculative romance.
Almost everyone is agreed about the need for a new basic trainer, and the decision will be taken by the Ministry of Defence on the basis of the facts as they are known by the Ministry, without any element of favour.
The reaching of a decision is not assisted by the spectacle of mass national press advertising, especially when the claims made by British Aerospace for its aircraft and its uniqueness cannot be factually supported.
Shorts has based its campaign on the well-proven principle of offering a better product at a more competitive price overall. The decision will be made by the Ministry of Defence on the basis of the facts. It is regrettable that the issue has been confused by claims made by British Aerospace which have no foundation in fact.
The most important matter of all is that the RAF should be supplied as soon as possible with a modern basic trainer which meets all aspects of technical requirements and specifications which it has put forward. Shorts' Tucano meets all performance requirements. There is clear evidence of long fatigue life. Short Brothers has the industrial capability to deliver a first-class product on schedule. Shorts' Tucano has competitive first-cost and low life-cycle costs. It combines maximum United Kingdom content with the greatest United Kingdom job creation potential. It is right for the RAF, it is right for the United Kingdom, and the time is right for a decision by Government in favour of the Shorts Tucano as a basic trainer for the RAF.

Mr. Keith Best: My speech this evening must begin on a note of great sadness, because my constituent, Junior Technician Colin Wilson, just shortly after his 22nd birthday, was one of the young RAF bandsmen who so tragically were killed recently in Germany. I pay tribute to the courage, camaraderie and expertise of our RAF bandsmen. We hold them in the highest regard, and I know that the whole House will wish to share my expression of sympathy to his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Wilson of Holyhead.
My constituency is the home of RAF Valley, where all our fast jet pilots are trained. The station makes a valuable contribution to our island's economy, and none can be busier than the station's search and rescue and mountain rescue teams, which are kept fully occupied by accidents on Snowdonia. My right hon. Friend paid tribute to them in his speech.
The young pilots at RAF Valley have a great interest in which aircraft will be the next RAF basic trainer. The speeches by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents are commendable. British Aerospace has a strong lobby. I propose for a few moments to indulge in some special pleading, but I do not have a constituency interest, so I hope that hon. Members will accept that in my comments I can be regarded as being disinterested.
I might say, perhaps with a note of detached amusement, that the speeches for the Pilatus PC9 and for the Tucano would probably have cancelled each other out if one were conducting the debate on the basis of some sort of competition, but during a period in which there has been the most intensive lobbying for any new military project it appears that there has been a change of emphasis in the Government's interpretation of the specification.
Originally, the clear impression was conveyed that there was no point in or advantage to be gained by any contender for the project seeking to produce an aircraft much better than AST412. Now, however, the goalposts seem to have been moved., and it appears that encouragement is being given to those who have exceeded the requirements of AST412. I hope that my hon. Friend

the Under-Secretary, when he replies, will make clear what is the order of the day. In any event, can my hon. Friend deny that the Hunting Firecracker's performance is well in excess of AST412 and can be equated with Swiss Pilatus? It is extraordinary that there is a debate as to which aircraft is best for Britain. Only the Hunting Firecracker is of total British design and can offer jobs in the long term on the back of export orders.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Can my hon. Friend tell me what proportion of the components of the Firecracker are British?

Mr. Best: A very large proportion indeed. I do not wish to go down that route or to argue whether there is one percentage point more British components in one aircraft than in another, but I can tell my hon. Friend that it is a very large percentage. It does not derogate, in any event, from my statement that the Hunting Firecracker is of British design. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall seek to persuade him of my point of view. Being the reasonable man that he is, no doubt he will be persuaded by the force of the argument.
It is only the Hunting Firecracker that can offer jobs in the long term on the back of export orders. I have never understood the argument that buying a foreign product is better for Britain when there is a British alternative. If there were to be a decision in favour of the Swiss Pilatus, backed by British Aerospace, we may smell the sweet breath of the Treasury down the back of my right hon. Friend, perhaps more with the thought of boosting the quotation of British Aerospace shares in a few months' time than with the thought of what is the best aircraft for Britain. I hope I am wrong, but that is a thought.
Is there any connection between the Government's interest in the Brazilian Tucano, built by Shorts, as it would be, and privatisation of the company? That is another question that it is perhaps proper to ask.

Mr. Wilkinson: I hesitate to say so, but I have flown all three aeroplanes, and on the basis of that experience I would not presume to make any suggestion; it is for the air staff to decide. Should not we say that the air staff should be allowed to have the aeroplane that they want and select?
While my hon. Friend is talking about other aeroplanes than the Firecracker being foreign, does he not remember that one of the best RAF trainers ever was the North American Texan or Harvard?

Mr. Best: My hon. Friend has a great deal of expertise and knowledge in these matters and the advantage over practically every hon. Member of having flown the aircraft concerned, and many other aircraft as well. I would not seek to cross swords with him as to his view of the aircraft. Although it is important that due weight should be given to the air staff's desire for an aircraft, I know that my hon. Friend, having been in the RAF himself, will no doubt be the first to agree that the air staff will go for the aircraft which they think is the best. It may be the most expensive, because the two are very often synonymous. That may not necessarily be in the best interests of this country. I know that my hon. Friend would not pursue that argument to its logical conclusion — that every piece of procurement should be done on the basis of precisely what the particular service demands at the time. But I accept the important point that he makes, that due weight should be given to the air staff's desire and expression of preference.
Is it the Ministry of Defence or the Treasury that will make the decision on procurement for our armed forces? If it is the latter, perhaps we do not need the former and can make substantial departmental staff savings — I speak in jest and do not propose that seriously. The House should have regard to whether some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) in his intervention about the preferences of the air staff, the question of employment and what is best for this country will be uppermost in the Government's consideration when making the decision, or whether the decision will be based entirely on finance. Although I appreciate the need for economy, I should certainly be very unhappy if the defence of the realm were to be based entirely on what was the cheapest product going at the time.
Are we to be led by the nose by foreign competitors subsidised by foreign Governments, in one case with money borrowed on the international market which is unlikely ever to be paid? Can it be right to see the extra marketing in the world of a foreign aircraft which has been given the boost of endorsement by the Royal Air Force?
Hunting Firecracker would make no profit whatsoever on this project, but would seek to make its profit on future export sales, on which, of course, the Government would get a royalty, which they would certainly not receive on a foreign aircraft. There is no guarantee whatever that we would sell Hawk on the back of a Swiss deal, and even Pilatus is convinced that any such thing is at least five years in the future.
Hunting Firecracker is competing with aircraft subsidised by foreign Governments to be produced by Government-funded industries. It does not sound like the actions of this Conservative Government. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what has been achieved so far by the Government for the Royal Air Force. I believe that it is a verifiable manifestation of our commitment to the first duty of Government—the defence of the realm. I can only ask my right hon. Friend to fight for his Department and for his Department's right to make the decision on the RAF trainer, not that of the Treasury, and to fight for the best interests of Britain and the RAF, which is in the forefront of the defence system.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: There is an obligation on all of us to be succinct.
Refuelling crews—and I agree with the Minister on this—do a fantastic job on the airbridge. These guys work at the margin of safety and it is a tribute to their skill that a Hercules has not yet gone into the drink. The skill of the air-to-air refuelling pilots and personnel is so great and the job is so hairy that a tribute must be paid to those who carry it out.
I wish to concentrate on the airbridge and on Mount Pleasant and ask a number of precise questions which are probably best answered by letter rather than in the debate.
My first question is this. I understand that the Argentine air force has taken delivery of the Durandel anti-runway bomb which is made by Matra in France—and which is purchased in some quantity, incidentally, by the United States air force. Unfortunately, it can be delivered by small aeroplanes like the Skyhawk, which can take up to

10 Durandels. It can be dropped at low altitude and we cannot be certain that every plane would be engaged by Rapier.
I understand that when the Durandel is released a parachute opens to slow the bomb, creating a safe distance of some 600 m between the detonation and the aircraft. A second parachute is then deployed to swing the bomb round to an impact angle of between 30 deg and 40 deg to the horizontal, minimising the risk of a ricochet. The rocket motor then ignites to produce 90 kN of thrust lasting about 0·45 seconds. Durandel strikes the concrete at around 260 m a second. After a one second delay the 15 kg of warhead explodes. Against reinforced concrete 40 cm thick, the weapon will produce a 5 m diameter crater at least 2 m deep and will break up a surface area exceeding 250 sq m. According to Matra, it takes more than a day to repair the damaged area and to resume operations.
This information comes from several sources. I ask, first, is it accurate and what is the Government's assessment of the Durandel weapon in relation to the Mount Pleasant airport?
Secondly, what is the Government's assessment of the Argentines' having acquired the Durandel, and have there been discussions with France about it? It seems very unsatisfactory that French industry should continue to supply the most sophisticated weaponry, given the situation in the south Atlantic.
Mount Pleasant has problems because there is no alternative to the Stanley airstrip. I ask, thirdly, could the Stanley airstrip take the TriStar on an emergency landing, because the whole policy, in the view of many of us, is vulnerable? Here we have a big runway, which therefore presents a big target.
I ask about the size of the repair squads. This may be classified information, on which I would not press the Government, but it would take only one Durandel to create havoc. What are the support facilities, and are the Government prepared to give possible targets and any indication of the sheer cost of the repair squads in Royal Engineer terms? That is my fourth question.
Fifthly, on the whole airbridge operation, what about the escorts? Whether conflict starts again is irrelevant to the Air Force debate, but I do not think that Alfonsin is going to start a war. However, the Argentine military have not gone away. Macho men humiliated are dangerous and it could well be, heaven help us, that the Falklands is used as an excuse for what many of them want to do anyway —destabilise the infant civilian regime. Therefore, we have to talk about the hypothetical situation of hostilities and I have to ask about escorts and how many are needed, because presumably everything in the airbridge, particularly the TriStars, has to be escorted.
This leads me to question no. 6, the whole question of interception. They do have Skyhawk. Is it the Government's assessment that they have Sidewinder? If they have, what representations have we made to the American Government about the supply of Sidewinder?
The whole interdiction situation really puts pressure on the entire line of flight. It is a very long chain of access to the Falklands, given also that there are heat-seeking missiles and the possible possession by the Argentines of Condors with German rockets and Italian guidance systems, approaching the Mount Pleasant airport at 4,000 miles an hour from a distance of under 500 miles; this really is a problem for Rapier.
I ask question 7: What is the assessment of that?
If a runway is lost the brutal question 8 that has to be faced is, can our Phantoms operate, because then we would have no long-range interceptors? Once it was put out of action, presumably, without the Phantom cover it could be kept closed day after day. Once closed, the long-range interceptors —this is a curate's egg situation—cannot operate. It may be that there are many emergency arrangements for quick repairs. I do not know whether it is proper to ask question 9, but what are the contingency plans? In the eventuality of any fighting, these are highly relevant questions.
My next question, no. 10, concerns air-to-air refuelling and the resulting effect on our tanker squadrons, which are certainly needed in Europe. Can we have extra tankers? What is the standby force in the South Atlantic? Our tanker resources are somewhat scarce. I do not know whether the Government are prepared to comment on that.
I come to question 11. We know that Argentina has developed relations with Israel. Is it the Government's assessment that they have anti-radiation missiles from the Israelis? I put this in terms of pure speculation as I do not know whether such missiles have been supplied by the Israelis, but I know that Argentina has received advice from the Israelis, who are extremely good at tearing up runways. It is clear that there is a heavy logistic requirement in keeping an airport such as Mount Pleasant in operation. Money is important but to what extent are the resources that we are making available in the south Atlantic at the expense of air defence in Europe? Even if there is no fighting—heaven forbid that it should take place—considerable pressure can be imposed and one can be extremely nasty without killing anyone. The vulnerability of land-based planes in the south Atlantic is considerable. We are adopting a policy there that is rather different from our policy in Europe.
My 12th question concerns the cost of the Mount Pleasant airfield, which I understand is at least £350 million. The Minister may say that this is a matter for the Department of the Environment. If he does, I shall accept that response. He will be aware that there are questions on this topic on the Order Paper. However, I should like to know rather more about the crime that we read about. I understand that if people are couped up in temporary accommodation on building projects there is the possibility of an awkward situation. Against the background of press reports and the stories that some of us have been hearing — to which I have not given publicity — about crime in the construction of the airfield, there should be a Government statement.
My next question, no. 13, is directed to the cost of our presence on Ascension Island. We have a full-scale base developing on Ascension Island and I understand that the cost will be more than £40 million. When we think of the cuts at home, the £40 million that will be spent on Ascension Island highlights the incredible cost of the Government's policy in the South Atlantic.
My 14th question is about the cost of the extra TriStars, to which the Minister referred in opening the debate. I understand that there are to be three extra TriStars. Is it intended that they should be on standby?
My 15th question is on a different subject but one that is related to the previous issue. It is directed to Wintex '85 and the rules of engagement. In the light of the subject of 1982, which, rightly, I am forbidden to go into tonight, it seems that the change in the rules of engagement was

extremely muddled, which is alarming in itself. Alternatively, orders on a particular occasion were given to the war cabinet. Who alters rules of engagement? I am not asking how alterations in rules of engagement are translated into fleet tactics or into Air Force tactics because I understand that the translation can be secret and sacrosanct. That is the proper domain of secrecy. However, it is right that Parliament should ask for what reasons rules of engagement are changed, to what they are changed and on what basis they are altered.
Wintex '85—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but I think that he should refer to this issue when he replies — is about command and control and the lessons that should be learned from them. Before April 1983, Argentina had 130 aircraft. After the war it had 70. I understand that it now has 160. Included among them are some extremely sophisticated aircraft from France. For example, there are Mirage IIIs which are Nesher-Israeli adapted. Heaven help us, Argentina has some Mirage Vs. What are we to say — question 16 — to our French colleagues about this supply of arms?
Finally, I turn to a subject on which I am rather sensitive and which I think reflects on all forces. It is said that by constantly asking questions about what has happened in the past one revives painful memories. Therefore, with permission I shall read a letter I have received from Mrs. Iris Hall of 109 Barnes road, Cowley, Oxford. She wrote:
I have wanted to write to you for many months but with my husband so desperately ill, thought it might be unwise if it got back to him and could upset him further. However, he died today, having been very ill for more than two years, since he never got over our only son Ian's death on HMS Coventry. I want to say please keep up your fight for what you believe should be.
She who was personally affected wants the truth of what happened, as does Mrs. Patricia Potter of Oriel cottage, Stafford road, Fordhorses, Wolverhampton, whom I saw last week. Her nephew, Lieutenant Adrian Anslow, was killed on the Atlantic Conveyor. I shall read a letter from an ex-service man, Squadron Leader Peter Nettleton, DFC, who wrote:
It seems clear to me that the tireless persistency and integrity which you have shown on the Belgrano affair were reflected in today's Ponting verdict at the Central Criminal Court. You will doubtless agree that the verdict itself amounts to a massive vindication of the much criticised jury system. My thanks, congratulations and best wishes, Peter Nettleton.
I have read these letters because I know that there are some service men who have been upset by my recent activities. However, there are others who think that the truth should come out.
Finally, I want to make it clear that as a junior and new Member I used to visit a man who was married to my father's favourite cousin, and a distant relative of mine, who was a marshal of the Royal Air Force, Arthur Tedder. He used to impress upon me—this was at a time when he was physically ill, though mentally alert — that politicians had considerable obligations to the services. In my view, one of those obligations at present is to be concerned about the defence of our country and to make it clear in Parliament that questions should be asked about policies involving the services when it is not quite proper that the services should be asked to carry them out. I believe that even in military terms it is important that questions be asked about the role of the RAF—however skilled, courageous and dedicated to their profession its personnel might be—that the House is giving it in the south Atlantic.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I had not thought that it would be my privilege to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Having heard what he said, I will forgo taking a similar approach to that of the hon. Gentleman. His actions, whether well motivated and well meant, have done a disservice to the nation. We are fortunate in having a Government who have the guts to take right and tough decisions, particularly at a time of crisis. I have had not one letter or telephone call of complaint from my constituents. I had a message from a constituent of a neighbouring Member of Parliament who said that the Government were right in their decision on the General Belgrano. Many of my constituents asked why that decision had not been taken earlier.
It is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate, the first on the Royal Air Force in which I have had the opportunity to participate. I come to it without a special constituency interest. Sadly I have no aircraft factory or Royal Air Force station in my constituency; we would welcome either in Cannock if we could persuade them to come. I have some modest credentials in so far as I have served for three years in my university air squadron at Southampton and was commissioned in the Royal Air Force volunteer reserve, whose tie I proudly wear today.
There are three issues of major concern, two of which have already been referred to. In regard to air staff target 412, I was alarmed at the remarks by my right hon. Friend at the outset that the Minister of Defence is still persisting with the idea that the option of resparring the Jet Provost remains open. That is wrong for several reasons. The Minister should put that ball firmly out of court now.
The Jet Provost is 25 years old. Even if it were resparred, we would still have a thirsty turbo jet whose equipment is many years old. Originally about 19 companies tendered for the new aircraft and we are now down to a shortlist of four. Those companies have gone to considerable expense in order to be able to tender for the contract. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will be able to reassure us tonight that resparring the Jet Provost is out.
Originally there was anxiety amongst the professionals in the Royal Air Force that we were even contemplating a turbo prop solution rather than a turbo fan aircraft which everyone knows was on the British Aerospace drawing board. I understand that many of the sceptics have been won over to the idea of a turbo prop as a result of their experience with aeroplanes which are currently flying.
The competition has done a useful service in that it has resulted in the Royal Air Force definitely being provided with an aeroplane which will be superior to the one it would originally have been offered. All the companies have gone out of their way to ensure that they have fine-tuned their offers to produce the best option.
I speak with a personal interest because it was possible for me last summer to spend three days at the central flying school, flying a variety of aeroplanes, including the Jet Provost mark 3 and the Jet Provost mark 5. In the mark 5 I was undertaking a typical low-level sortie that a student would undertake, with the objective of flying over the Pennines at 250 ft to locate a target and fly back. The importance of speed in the equation was impressed upon me.
Unless a student pilot is pushed to fly at high speeds of around 300 knots, there will be a substantial leap between the speed of the basic trainer and the aeroplane which the student will next fly, the Hawk. This low-level exercise is central to the role of training in the Royal Air Force today. Today's modern aircraft fly at a low level. Therefore, it is important that a student gets such experience from the outset.
Speed is also important because it enables the aircraft to climb quickly through our invariably muggy weather where there is low cloud, very often extending up to 10,000 or 15,000 feet. Therefore, we want an aircraft which can get up to a working height as quickly as possible. I am pleased that the Minister is considering a speed of a usable 240 knots instead of a desirable 240 knots. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best); I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber at the moment. He had a point when he said that the goalposts have been shifted. Air staff target 412 was not drawn up correctly.
All four companies which have tendered have met the specification but they have a valid criticism. Some of them, principally the company tendering for the Firecracker, say that they were told that the speed should be 210 knots, with 240 knots at the maximum, and now the Ministry is saying that the usable speed should be 240 knots. Therefore, I have that sympathy with them.
I agree—I think that this is the mood of the House today — that we do not want a political aeroplane. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has got that message — I am sure that he has — and that he will convey it to the Secretary of State and his colleague, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. It would be wrong to favour one area of the country with jobs as against another. As has been said, if jobs were created in one area, they could be lost in another. It would also be wrong to allow foreign policy considerations to enter into the argument. It would be wrong to buy an aeroplane simply to boost the balance sheet of a company that the Government have high hopes of bringing into the private sector — that is, Short Brothers, which is an excellent, first-class company. I agree with privatisation, but it would be wrong if we were to make the major objective privatisation rather than finding the right aeroplane for the RAF.
All the contenders, in their way, are excellent aeroplanes. They would not have been on the final list if they were not. I have flown two of them—the Tucano and the PC9—so I speak with some experience of them. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), I have not flown the Firecracker. The Westland A20 is not even off the drawing board.
The campaign has often been vitriolic. I should like to deal with each of the contenders in turn. I strongly commend the initiative that has been taken on the Firecracker. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends do as well. The people in the company have put their money where their mouth is. They have done what the Government have asked the industry to do and what they have asked our talent in the design teams to do, which is to produce a British product that can be a world-beater. However, I believe that they have not been entirely straight in the way in which they have conducted their campaign on Firecracker because it is not an all-British aeroplane. For a start, the engine is Canadian and other


parts, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn was not willing to divulge to us, are not of British manufacture. For example, I understand that the escape system is a United States Stencil system, although I believe that the company is considering putting in a Martin Baker seat.
Westland is an excellent company, and we have heard from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about it, as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Westonsuper-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who eloquently put the case for it. It is important that we look carefully at the predicament in which Westland finds itself over its helicopter production schedule. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take careful note of that. That aeroplane is not off the drawing board yet, so the RAF is entitled to look at something that is flying.

Mr. Wiggin: Will my hon. Friend consider the history of aircraft acquisition by the RAF? Every major aeroplane bought since the last war and., indeed, some during and before it, has been bought off the drawing board. Therefore, that criticism is not valid.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that remark. What he says is true. However, we are faced with real as well as drawing board options. There are some good real options, so we should look more carefully at them.
I have already saluted Short Brothers. It has done a magnificent job. Its recent order in China was the latest in a series of highly successful deals that it has pulled off under its highly dynamic and excellent chairman, Sir Philip Foreman. However, there are one or two problems with the Tucano in terms of export prospects. There is already the Embraer 312, on which that aeroplane is based, and there is the aeroplane that is being produced under licence in Egypt, both of which will be competing for that export market. Although Shorts' Tucano will be a more sophisticated aeroplane than its competitors, it faces a ready-made competitive market.
It is not true to say that British Aerospace does not need this contract. It needs this contract just as much as the other companies. We should not put British Aerospace out of court simply because it is the major defence and aeroplane manufacturer in this country.
The Hawk and PC9 package is a sensible support package. Although it is true that the Swiss are not committed to buying the Hawk, it is true also that, if the PC9 is not bought, there is no chance whatsoever that the Swiss will buy the Hawk. We should bear that important point in mind.
It is not my job to evaluate the technical merits of these aeroplanes, because that has already been done at Boscombe Down. I do not deny that, in a sense, I speak for the Royal Air Force, although I am in no way authorised to do so. I believe, as do most other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, that the aeroplane that is chosen must be the one that the RAF wants. I have drawn on my experience as a pilot — admittedly, of limited hours—and I believe that speed is the vital factor. One aeroplane is faster than the rest. It is important to note that, if the AST412 was wrong in the first place, it is not my job as an hon. Member to go along with a mistake. Speed is important and the PC9 is marginally ahead of the rest. I believe that that is the position as the RAF sees it.

Mr. Robert Atkins: As my hon. Friend knows, I do not hold a particular brief because I was not a pilot—

Mr. Wilkinson: Except for British Aerospace.

Mr. Atkins: That is not true. I do not hold a brief for any particular organisation. The Garrett engine has now been made available to the Tucano, and, in terms of speed, the Garrett engine will exceed the RAF's requirements. That puts a whole new complexion on the Tucano.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is correct. I was discussing this matter the other night with Short Brothers. The fact is that that engine has not yet been mated with the aircraft frame. There must be further developments. It is not for me to judge whether that is good or bad; it is for the Royal Air Force to judge. I am trying merely to bring to the debate some of my experience as a trainee pilot sitting in the front seat having my head beaten by an instructor and being told not to make mistakes.
There are pros and cons to be considered when proposing collaboration. Although collaboration may be a splendid objective, complex decision-making procedures —often involving changes of Government—must take place. Those procedures can result in lengthy discussions on whether to proceed with a decision taken by a previous Government, on the work share allocation and on differences of objective. I believe that differences of objective are the most important factor to consider in contemplating collaboration. I heartily endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) said about collaboration. I believe that the project is already slipping. British Aerospace needs to develop a new aeroplane in order to keep its design team together. The RAF needs a new aircraft to ensure that it is capable of meeting threats. If we do not take action swiftly, export markets that are currently open to us will be lost for good.
For those reasons, I urge my right hon. Friend to make a swift decision one way or the other. Some Conservative Members are outraged at the fact that the French are trying to delay this project to advantage the Mirage 2000 and to ensure that they get what they want at our expense. There is no doubt that the home solution could be remarkably cheap, and probably as cheap as a collaborative programme, especially bearing in mind that collaboration itself has costs.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will take an early decision and that he will not close the door to the possibility of a United Kingdom solution.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I have not had the flying experience of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), although I did fly Tiger Moths in the early to mid-1950s. We had leather helmets and gloves in those days. However, I have had a little experience of procurement. As I know that other hon. Members want to speak, I shall be brief and address myself to one issue—the jet trainer replacement.
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) describe the programme of procurement of a new aeroplane to replace the Jet Provost. I will not go into the details, but it is a remarkable process. We are now going through a rebidding operation, which is of great concern to me. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
I understand that initially there were 20 contenders for the contract, of which four were short listed. After some


considerable time, there was a further shortlisting — a short shortlist—of two, the manufacturers of the PC9 and the Tucano. They were then — and this is quite remarkable—asked to submit another bid, the effect of which was to open up the whole position. The manufacturers which were knocked out in the short short-listing procedure asked their parliamentary representatives to lobby the MoD and all and sundry to be put back on the list. The consequence is that there are now at least four contenders. From what the Minister said in his opening remarks, I understand that a refurbished Jet Provost is back on the list, but I am not sure whether that is an additional contender, making five in all. The asking for subsequent bids is inept because of the pressure to get companies that were knocked out back on the list. That has shown that there is uncertainty and confusion.
An article in Flight International on 2 February entitled "Modus Operandi" is worth reading. It describes in detail some of the disadvantages of that approach. Once we go back to having four companies submitting additional bids, that means additional development work for them and the expenditure of extra money, which is a waste of the nation's resources. It is not the way to go about these matters.
The problem has emerged mainly from the fact that none of the turbo trainers was really suitable apart from the PC9, although that has had to have larger power units and, because of the specification produced by the RAF, the company is trying to re-engine the plane. This waste of resources could have been avoided had another process taken place. As a result, we are putting in larger engines, and the relationship between airframe life, range, fuel consumption, capacity, weight and so on will be upset. If the PC9 is not selected, it could result in a risky project —and we have already heard about Nimrod.
If we attempt to doctor these things, will we end up with another delayed project and perhaps even with an aeroplane with which the RAF would be dissatisfied? A more straightforward process could be achieved if we first selected the type of aircraft which is best for the job. We could then have a competitive tender on that, followed by a second stage when there would be further competitive bids from the manufacturers and the various consortia which were prepared to provide the aircraft that best fitted the bill.
The advantage would be that the RAF would end up with the aeroplane that it wants, and the Treasury would be able to get the plane that it wants at the price that it wishes to pay. Consequently, everyone would win. In addition, this more logical approach to procurement would create more jobs and a stronger industry. We would be able to buy more aircraft and would have a better defence for Britain.
This venture into competitive tendering is a worthwhile approach, but I wonder whether there is a lack of direction in carrying out the procurement process. My strong opinion is that jobs should be taken into account. There is no doubt in my mind that we must have the best aircraft for the RAF, but we should create as many jobs as possible.
Many of my constituents work at Brough. It has been suggested that, with the PC9, 85 per cent. of the airframe

work for the RAF planes would in man hours be carried out in Britain, and that 15 per cent. would be carried out by the Swiss Pilatus company.
The hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) referred to further orders. British Aerospace is optimistic about further sales if we choose the PC9. I understand that about 24 planes are required in Switzerland and that the 160 Swiss Hunters require replacement. There is optimism that these could be replaced by the single-seat Hawk 200.
Humberside is a region of high unemployment, and in my constituency male unemployment is now 20·5 per cent. This project would be important, given that there is a lack of high technology industry in the area. Much of our industry is primary. As well as fishing, there is steel making on the south bank. Consequently, the PC9 project, which I hope the RAF will be supplied with, would stimulate technology and the economy in the area. Trade unions have contributed magnificently in the campaign, and we should recognise that men have spent hour upon hour on it. Some people may say that that is not what they should be doing. Nevertheless, we must recognise that they have made every effort to ensure that the PC9 gets work.
The PC9 is the best aircraft. If we opt for one of the botched-up versions of it, several hon. Members will be interested to monitor the project to see whether we have another potential Nimrod on our hands.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I declare an interest as a parliamentary adviser to British Aerospace, Space and Communications Division. My specialist interest in space allows me to withhold any comment about the RAF trainer, and I am sure that the Minister will be glad to have one less voice lobbying him tonight. The matter has been well aired.
In the short time available to me I shall concentrate on a matter raised by my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and that is the fallback position if we cannot get a collaborative venture on the European fighter aircraft. I agree with my right hon. Friends and Opposition Members who said that there must be worries about the slippage in the project.
Anyone who looks at the history of other collaborative projects must recognise that the French national interest has always fought extremely hard. I am worried that the enthusiasm of the French for the Mirage 2000 and their ideas about a new engine for it do not sit happily with our interests. Indeed, their current interest for a light aircraft goes against our perceived views, and adds to the problem. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will assure us that the Government are already considering the fallback position.
If one takes a dispassionate view, the fallback position could relate to the option of buying American. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity tonight to make it plain that the Government would think long and hard before they decimated the defence airframe industry in the United Kingdom and removed the avionics capacity, which has been a key element in successful developments, such as Tornado and Jaguar. When he deals with the alternatives, I hope that he will say something about the experimental aircraft programme. Substantial resources have been committed to it. I applaud the Government's


willingness to do that and to act quickly. I look forward, as many hon. Members do, to seeing that aircraft fly at Farnborough next year. I hope that by then we shall have in our minds and in the planning of Government a better feel for what the British national solution may be.
From the briefings I have had, I understand that there is a possibility of a British national programme that would not be out of line financially compared with the likely cost of a collaborative programme. That is especially true if one takes out, as one should, the question of the development of a new aircraft engine because that raises wider issues, other possibilities in the export market and so on.
The interest in the EAP can lead to a realistic view of the threat. I am a member of the Select Committee on Defence and think that we should constantly remind ourselves that we are dealing with the threat in the 1990s and, to be more specific, the MIG 90. If we are not careful, in the long-drawn-out processes of Government —this has been one of our failings in the past, as has been getting industrial collaboration moving quickly—we could have slippage, both in time and in meeting that genuine threat.
Before concluding my speech, I cannot help but say a word or two about the Falklands. I went down there about two years ago and, like the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I should like to pay tribute to the remarkable efforts of the air crews. They manage to get not only people like me but far more essential traffic to and from the Falklands. But, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I look forward to the day when the airfield is completed, as that will make life that much more bearable and will enable us to look at the whole question of the Falklands in a better and more productive way.
My text on the Falklands was given to me by a very senior retired RAF officer, a constituent of mine, who said to me when the task force sailed, "Right. You have all joined hands and the will of Parliament is to support this great venture. All I ask is that you make sure that the politicians do not seek to interfere with operational matters thereafter and when the battle is over, I pray you don't spend the next few years trying to suggest where we went wrong."
The hon. Member for Linlithgow has done nothing but that. It grieves me to say to a colleague for whom I have had respect for many years in other matters that he is totally out of touch with the country on this issue, as was his contribution in this debate tonight.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for having given me a few minutes in which to make my speech. I represent a constituency that designs and builds aeroplanes, but which does not seem to benefit from them. The PC9 was, I believe, mostly designed at Bembridge. I am a former non-executive director, of Pilatus Brittan Norman. I had to resign two years ago, and I miss the £2,000 a year that I used to earn. But Firecracker was originally put together by Desmond Norman in an outbuilding at Whitwell on the Isle of Wight and was finally completed at Sandown. There is also Westlands, with its subsidiary the British Hovercraft Corporation, which has the A20 with the Australians, and Shorts, which subcontracts much of its work to Cowes. For example, the wings of the 330 and the 360 are built there.
I was told today by Westlands that if it failed with the A20 it would benefit most with the Tucano. Our Northern Ireland colleagues are not in the Chamber now, but they rightly want most of the work involved. At Christmas I wrote to Sir Phillip Forman congratulating him on his publicity, and pleaded with him that, should he be successful, he should subcontract some of the work to the Isle of Wight.
But the real reason for my intervention is that I am scared stiff of what will happen to the British Hovercraft Corporation. Some very able people down there designed and built the hovercraft. The 188 was very successful, but unfortunately the Navy does not seem to want hovercraft. Nevertheless, I am sure that its role in mine countermeasures operations is outstanding and that is an area of defence that we ignore at our peril. That is the sort of role that that hovercraft should be playing. However, that does not seem to be on, and I believe that the old BH7 is now to be sold. The whole future of the British Hovercraft Corporation is tied up with Westlands, so serious consideration should be given to Westlands' plea, which has been echoed in several parts of the House, that the ST404, and particularly the W30, should be brought forward. That would obviously help enormously.
There are 1,500 skilled people working on the Isle of Wight with the British Hovercraft Corporation. That company is our biggest employer. It used to employ more than 2,000 people, but there have been substantial redundancies. The Isle of Wight's unemployment rate is now 17·1 per cent., which, with 300 or more redundancies, would quickly go above 20 per cent. We would then, surely, qualify for assisted area status, but that is not a situation we seek.
The Isle of Wight would be helped if the Castor programme was brought forward. It is a very cheap programme, which uses the Islander aircraft. It does not use a Nimrod, so the Government should ignore any pleas from the RAF to use Nimrod in that role. I believe that the PC9 is the aircraft that the RAF wants. If that is agreed, it will encourage Dr. Buhle—who owns 70 per cent. of Oerlikon Buhle with his sister—to continue investing in the Isle of Wight. It will also help to bring back to Bembridge production of the Islander aircraft. That aircraft is at present produced in Romania. That would create more jobs.
That is my plea, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North for allowing me to make it.

Mr. McNamara: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
We have had a very interesting and full debate, despite the shortage of time. Due to the arrangements that usually exist between the Under-Secretary and myself, I think that all those who wanted to speak in the debate have managed to do so. That is good, because every hon. Member should have the opportunity to air his constituency interests and, more importantly, to look at the issue in the round, together with all the problems facing the RAF and our defence industries.
I should like to make a point that I believe has the full support of every hon. Member. We regard it as absolute nonsense to go for the refurbishment of the Jet Provost. That is a relatively uncontroversial statement. It is penny


wise and pound foolish of the Government still to put forward that idea. Many millions of pounds would be spent on an aircraft with a very short life.
There has been a remarkable agreement on both sides of the House—between Haltemprice and Hull, west and between Scunthorpe and Hull, north—about what plane the RAF should have. When the time comes for a decision, I hope that it will be made on the basis of what the RAF needs—not upon what Humberside, Belfast or Westland need. We have a duty to ensure that we provide the people whom we expect to fly the aircraft and protect the nation with the best training aircraft available. We all have our own ideas of what that is, but the consensus is that we should provide the plane that the RAF wants.
Hon. Members have expressed their concern about what will happen to the European project for the new fighter plane. All hon. Members have mirrored the fear, almost to the point of becoming paranoid, about the role of the French and their attitude to the Mirage 2000. Perhaps behind the scenes the Secretary of State is flexing his muscles rather than swinging the Mace and working hard and long. However, we have the impression that the French are making the running. It seems that the Secretary of State, in his desire to appear to be a good European and to escape from the idea that we are not really part of Europe, is submerging some of our basic national interests. The message from the House should be that we want firm assurances. The defence of our country and the maintenance of a firm industrial base upon which we can defend our country requires early decisions.
That argument from both sides of the House is that, despite what has been said today and despite what the Government are doing about collaborative projects, Westland should have an early decision on the helicopter to relace the Puma and the Wessex. That is important in industrial terms and in national strategic terms.
Sometimes we tend to be a little parochial in that we concentrate on our own industries and interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Shieffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and the hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) reminded us of the importance of the RAF plane in its NATO role and some of the problems involved in the need for a stand-off ability in our airfield destruction weapons. That is important.
Repeatedly our attention is drawn to the United Kingdom's vulnerability and the problem posed by the disaster, for which we all share responsibility, of the Nimrod early warning system. We are right to be concerned about that. We must consider the importance of an early warning system. If the Shackleton cannot provide it, we must wait a long time for Nimrod. We should consider whether we can afford to gamble for another three or four years. As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said, the possibility of leasing AWACS until we reach decisions would not meet some of the proper anxieties of the House.
Different people have different attitudes about the campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has waged concerning the Falklands. I have not always agreed with him, but it is right and proper that he should have raised his anxieties in his role as a Member of Parliament. The Opposition supported the Falklands campaign as we have no time for invasion and the resolution of international differences by unprovoked

aggression. However, the Government and the Conservative party are out of touch with the country in that, having successfully conducted that campaign, they do not realise that we should turn our attention to resolving the fortress Falklands issue to get away from the great drain that the Falklands will be on our defence capability.
A great responsibility lies on the Government in initiating such procedures. It is a case of being magnanimous in victory. There should also be a note of caution as we know what has been supplied to and obtained by the Argentine Government since their defeat in the Malvinas. Our international relations and Britain's primary defensive role are not helped by our having a festering sore in the South Atlantic. It is also no help to us for a large part of our Air Force effort to be concentrated there. The Opposition's policy has been to try to find some proper accommodation with Argentina. We must not drop our guard or be prepared to be rolled on again, but we must be prepared to talk.
There has been a sense of unreality about the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said, it is taking place under the shadow of Trident. We do not know what it will cost. With the pound going up and down against the dollar like a yo-yo, expenditure on what we regard as a superfluous system will be increased. The Trident expenditure will impinge ever more on our ability to pay for the defence of our country by proper conventional methods.
We want a proper conventional defence — a strong Air Force and a strong industrial base. All that is being put at risk. The Government said that they will not introduce another White Paper. They will have to introduce another White Paper and another defence review or they will introduce no programmes but try to pretend that everything is fine. If that happens, the Secretary of State will build up problem after problem for his successors. That is not the proper role of the Secretary of State. He must meet the new challenges within the limitations that his budget puts on him. If he does not do that, we shall end up with structural disarmament, That would be a tragedy for Britain and the free world.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): It gives me great pleasure to close this year's Royal Air Force debate. This Government can be justifiably proud of their record of spending and support for the RAF. Since we came to power, expenditure on air systems, most of which goes to the RAF, has risen over 40 per cent. in real terms, as was mentioned earlier by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Expenditure on RAF equipment for 1985–86 is estimated to be £3,506 million and a total RAF complement of around 93,000 represents expenditure approaching £38,000 per person.
As an article in the Financial Times said on Tuesday of this week:
The RAF is in the throes of its biggest re-equipment programme since the Korean war.
This continuing programme is reaching its peak and will mean that by 1989 over half of our aircraft will have been recently replaced. This compares with five years ago when half our front line was over 20 years old. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), I do not see the picture that he painted of the RAF. Inevitably, though, with 1985–86 bringing an end to the


3 per cent. expenditure increases, our budget is increasingly tight, given the costs and sophistication of modern aircraft, weaponry and software. That is why we are striving for greater efficiency, competition and international collaboration on defence spending, with emphasis upon improving the teeth-to-tail ratio and upon increasingly involving the private sector in support tasks and by putting schemes out to contract.

Mr. Carter-Jones: If the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that we are on target, will he tell us what aircraft we shall have in 1995 to defend us in a fighting capacity, given that more than 10 years are needed to develop such an aircraft?

Mr. Lee: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and give him a list of the aircraft which we expect to have in operation in 1995.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman not give those details now?

Mr. Lee: No, I cannot do so now because I have very many points to deal with.
I was not surprised to hear mention of the competition to provide a new trainer for the RAF to replace the aging Jet Provost. There were speeches from hon. Members which supported each of the individual contenders. On the PC9, there was the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). His broad approach is that what is good for Brough is good for Britain. While one understands his constituency interests, I believe that the hon. Gentleman was unfair in being so disparaging about a number of the other contenders when he does not have all the facts and figures in front of him, in particular the financial aspects. Support for the PC9 was also given by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall), the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). Support for the A20 came from my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). The case for the Shorts Tucano was made by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and the Hunting Firecracker was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best), who also had an Adjournment debate on that topic.
We currently have about 160 Jet Provosts in service but they have outdated avionics, high fuel consumption, side by side seating and a poor ratio of support man hours to flying hours. They would need major refurbishments to meet the pilot training need beyond the end of the decade, but I have to say that we have not yet ruled out the refurbishment option. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Despite the obvious groans, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) pointed out earlier that if that refurbishment option did go ahead it would give him and his constituency some work and that that was his reserve option.
Quite naturally, attention has focussed on the requirements of ASR 412 and the evaluation of a new trainer aircraft. We are looking at an order for some 130 aircraft with an option for a further 15. It would be a turbo prop with jet-like handling, tandem seating, good climbing power and full aerobatic performance. Obviously we also want it to be reliable and economical to operate.
My experience of the past 16 months or so is that competitions of this sort generate a good deal of powerful lobbying and this certainly has been no exception, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare. The competition has provided excellent business for the restaurants and hostelries around Westminster. It has benefited considerably the stationery industry. The post office has also done extremely well.
No-one will be surprised if I say that we listen very carefully to all the points that are made to us and that we take into account in coming to a decision a very wide range of relevant factors.
It will be even more unsurprising if I say that our evaluations are impartial, and that the relevant factors include broader industrial and economic issues. That is the background against which most of the lobbying takes place. For our part, however, we must restate that the main consideration is to provide the Royal Air Force with a suitable aircraft to fulfil its training requirements.
We asked for best and final offers from two manufacturers — from Shorts, with their Tucano, and from British Aerospace, with the PC9. In the event, we also received best and final offers on the Hunting Firecracker and the Westlands A20.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement earlier indicated to Hunting and to Westlands that they really were not in the competition at that stage but that nevertheless, if they wanted to submit ultimately, at their expense, best and final offers, they would be considered. They were told at that stage that they were not likely to be considered, in order to save them further money. I suggest that the competition has been handled extremely fairly by the Ministry and that ultimately the RAF will get a very good buy, assuming that it goes ahead with a new trainer.

Mr. McNamara: Can the hon. Gentleman say when?

Mr. Lee: The decision will be taken in the spring. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which spring?"] Spring 1985.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the European fighter aircraft, commonly known as EFA — perhaps some day I shall be able to say "affectionately known as EFA". We are still at a complex and difficult stage of studies and negotiations.
The hon. Member for Kingston Upon Hull, North dealt with the whole matter of EFA, as did the hon. Member for Eccles, and my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, West, for Cannock and Burntwood and for Arundel (Mr. Marshall).
A particularly strong plea that I shall not forget was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, who spoke most passionately and most eloquently, as he always does in matters affecting British Aerospace and his constituents who work at Warton in the South Ribble constituency. I fully understand his sentiments. As a Lancashire MP, I know the importance of Warton and have a number of sub-contracting companies to British Aerospace in my constituency.
In the mid-1990s we shall need to replace our current force of Jaguars and Phantoms. So far, we and four other countries—France, Germany, Italy and Spain—have agreed on a European staff target that specifies a single seat, twin-engined, agile, short-take-off-and-landing fighter. This will be primarily an air defence aircraft but with good ground-attack capability. We shall need about 250 such aircraft.
Feasibility studies are in hand and the industrial element of those, including participation by British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, has recently been completed. Those industrial reports were delivered to officials last week and are now being studied in detail in each capital. It would be wrong of me to anticipate the outcome of the national and international assessments but we are proceeding with all speed, and it is intended that the five Defence Ministers should meet in the spring to take stock of the position and decide how best to proceed.
The House will be aware that our starting point is our concern to maximise co-operation and collaboration in Europe while seeking to meet the equipment requirements of the RAF. EFA should become a positive manifestation of that goal. Our work over the coming weeks will be to establish whether that claim can be met while simultaneously ensuring that the legitimate aspirations of the five nations' taxpayers, air forces and industries are properly safeguarded. There is a strong political will in Europe that an EFA programme should be launched and that it should proceed. We shall continue to play our full part in the process of striving for a cost-effective collaboration programme based on fair and equitable terms for all partners.
If we succeed, we shall be launching more than a procurement programme. Therefore, we shall be setting the seal on a new and exciting phase of European co-operation, the political, economic, industrial and defence implications of which could be profound.
While I fully understand some of the anti-French sentiment that has been expressed in the Chamber this evening, it has not, in my view, been over-helpful. Surely we should be trying to bring our nations together in terms of collaboration.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about me, and I know his understanding of the subject, but will he please recognise that, with the pressure on MPs with constituents working in British Aerospace, they need to have more that fine words; they positively want something to happen.

Mr. Lee: I fully understand the comments of my hon. Friend and he does not need to over-egg the pudding; I get the message.
I turn now to Westlands, of particular interest to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare. Westlands is and will remain a vitally important defence contractor. The services depend on Westlands for support of in-service helicopters and the production of new aircraft. Ministers of a number of Departments are closely in touch with Westlands. We are fully cognisant of their problems and are working closely with the company.
None the less, the Ministry of Defence supports the company's efforts, encouraged by Government launch aid, to diversify into civil markets. Civil prospects with EH101 and W30 look most encouraging from 1990 onwards. The company will nevertheless continue to need military orders from both the United Kingdom and export markets. We recognise that the company is currently short of orders for production aircraft in the late 1980s. We are therefore considering with them what help the Government

can give in generating additional orders in the medium term. I note all that has been said in the debate by a number of hon. Members on the W30.

Mr. Ashdown: The Minister has said that he would like to help the company. Does he realise that the greatest help that he can give to the company is a decision one way or the other, in principle and not necessarily tied to a time, on the AST 404? Can he give any indication of the time when such a decision might be forthcoming?

Mr. Lee: I could not give a comment on the precise timing, but I repeat that we are fully aware of the situation at Westlands. I note the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest and his own interest as a small shareholder. On a personal note, when we privatise the Royal Ordnance I hope that he will indicate his support. We will send him a pink form in the hope that he will buy £20 worth of shares in that.
On the question of Nimrod AEW, several hon. Members expressed concern about the delay and cost overruns in this project. Let me say immediately that I share their concern. It is not a procurement exercise of which either the Ministry or industry can be particularly proud.
In the interest of saving time, I will move fairly fast to cover a number of other topics.
The hon. Member for Eccles mentioned British Aerospace, Woodford. We fully appreciate the loading problems faced by British Aerospace in Manchester. We have been considering a number of possible programmes which could be undertaken in the industry and the transfer of Nimrod major servicings is one of these. It is hoped to make an announcement shortly. The future of Woodford must, of course, be primarily a matter for the British Aerospace management to determine but we are aware of the situation there.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned the subject of reintroducing a flying role for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force when resources permit. I share his wish to improve the role of the Auxiliary Air Force and would draw his attention to our decision to set up a new auxiliary RAF Regiment squadron to provide anti-aircraft defence at RAF Waddington.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) asked whether we were planning to update the Phantom F2 avionics in the same way as we are updating the Buccaneer. In fact, the avionics in the Phantom were fitted much more recently than those in the Buccaneer. This, together with the fact that the Phantom will be largely replaced by the Tornado F2, means that such an update is neither necessary nor cost-effective.
We are also very conscious of the need to update our IFF capability. This was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and others. We are developing with our NATO partners a NATO identification system. This system will incorporate new technology to meet the threat in the electronic environment in the 1990s and beyond.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley both raised the subject of the long-range stand-off missile. In partnership with the United States and West Germany we have agreed to undertake a feasibility study into options for introducing such a weapon in the 1990s. This study should be completed in November 1986.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked a whole range of questions on his particular topic. I will discuss those questions with my ministerial colleagues and we certainly will take note of them.
On the question of Tornado, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members and is of specific interest to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, we are currently considering with the RAF whether we should buy a quantity of Attrition aircraft, but as yet no decision has been taken.
On the whole question of defence sales, there are prospects in a number of countries. I cannot comment on them in detail but in fact — a number of my hon. Friends will bear me out—British Aerospace and British industry have given the Ministry of Defence and its sales team considerable credit for the efforts we have put into the sales effort.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare asked about the Meteorological Office and the cost of the service. I visited the office recently and I can testify that it provides a valuable service in many areas. It was the subject of a resource control review and in implementing the recommendations that flowed from that review the office is actively seeking new ways of exploiting its services in the commercial sector.

Mr. John Mc William: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and negatived.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Terrorism

10 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.
It is only 12 months since the present Prevention of Terrorism Act completed its passage through the House after the most careful study and detailed debate of its provisions. Year by year the Act it replaced had been scrutinised and reviewed, and that scrutiny was entirely right and proper as is ours now because the powers that have been given to the police and to Ministers since the first Act was passed in 1974 are wholly exceptional and represent a very considerable infringement of the civil liberties normally enjoyed by individuals in this country. This has been said many times over the past 10 years by successive Ministers. It remains true: but sadly it also remains true that terrorism is a menace to our society and the need for legislation is as great as ever.
It has become the practice in these debates to survey the incidence of terrorism in the previous 12 months and draw attention to the worst and most bloody examples. This year it is hardly necessary to do so. The bombing of the Grand hotel, Brighton on 12 October filled us all with a particular horror and outrage. That outrage was shared by the country as a whole because the Brighton bomb was intended to strike a grievous blow at the very heart of our constitution and our democratic system. My right hon. Friend has already informed the House of the results of Mr. John Hoddinott's inquiry into the security arrangements at Brighton and of the measures we are taking to look closely and urgently at the security requirements of similar events in future. But while all sensible safeguards will be applied we can say to the terrorists now that whatever foul deeds they perpetrate, however vile their acts, we shall not play into their hands by changing the way in which government is carried on in this country, with Ministers not only accountable to Parliament but accessible to the public.
There have, of course, been other terrorist incidents in the past year. Despite the successes of the security forces, the terrorist groups concerned with Northern Irish affairs have remained active, particularly in the Province itself. Over Christmas and the new year a series of arrests on Merseyside and elsewhere attracted considerable attention from a number of hon. Members and from the press. The House will be aware that six people are now awaiting trial for conspiracy to cause an explosion; and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on their cases further.
A significant change in the 1984 Act was the explicit extension of the powers of arrest and extended detention to those involved in international terrorism. It was very soon made clear how necessary that extension was and how truly international the threat from terrorism has now become. Within weeks of the passage of the Act, WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot down in St. James's Square, in an appalling instance of brutal and futile violence.
When the 1984 Bill was going through Parliament Members of this House and another place were rightly concerned about the enlargement of the scope of section 12. The House will recall that my right hon. Friend gave a firm assurance that chief officers of police would be

advised that the powers in respect of international terrorism should be used only where there was a prospect of a criminal charge in this country or of action under the Immigration Act 1971. I hope right hon. and hon. Members will have been reassured by the statistics that have been published on the use of this new power. In the period from 22 March to 31 December 1984, there were a total of 44 detentions in connection with international terrorism. In 18 of these cases my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary authorised extensions of detention beyond 48 hours; 13 persons were subsequently deported or removed from the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act and eight others were charged with criminal offences. In only one case in which an extension of detention was granted was the person released without charge and not excluded from this country. I hope the House will agree that those figures suggest a restrained and controlled use of an important power in response to a significant problem.
It would clearly not be in the national interest for me to disclose what it was that each of the 44 persons detained was suspected of doing or planning, or to discuss general trends or patterns of behaviour. But I am absolutely convinced that acts of international terrorism have been prevented from taking place in this country during the past year by police use of the new powers given to them last March, and that it was only by the use of those powers that those acts of terrorism could have been so prevented. Two cliches that are often heard are that we live in a dangerous world and that it is a small world. In the field of terrorism both are very true: violence or political tension in one apparently isolated area can so often explode in murder and destruction on the other side of the globe, in a country wholly uninvolved in the original dispute. We must continue to make it unmistakably clear that we are not prepared for this country to be turned into a battleground for foreign feuds and alien causes.
When the 1984 Act was going through Parliament, we gave a commitment to appoint a person to look each year at the working of the legislation and to produce a report to assist Parliament in the consideration of any order providing for the continuation of the Act. Sir Cyril Philips agreed to undertake that task, and copies of his first report were placed in the Library of the House earlier this week. We would like to record our gratitude to Sir Cyril for the work he has done and for producing, with commendable speed, a report which is both clear and helful.
There is entirely legitimate interest and concern in what is an exceptional piece of legislation; and we hope that this independent view of an area in which security considerations seldom allow the full facts of individual cases to be disclosed will go some way towards allaying that concern. I am, of course, pleased that Sir Cyril is broadly satisfied that the Act is being used properly and I hope that others will draw reassurance from his conclusions. He has also raised a number of more detailed points to which it clearly would not be possible for me to give definitive answers at this stage, but I would assure the House, as my right hon. and learned Friend has told Sir Cyril Philips, that we shall give all his comments the closest consideration.
My right hon. and learned Friend has received a report from Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary on the work of the police operating the port controls provided for under the Act. The report deals with security arrangements and is therefore not suitable for publication, but the


detailed recommendations are receiving careful consideration, and I can take this opportunity to say a word or two about the inspectors' reaction to Lord Jellicoe's recommendation that all passengers on commercial flights and sailings between Great Britain and Ireland should complete landing and embarkation cards. The inspectors were asked to assess the resource implications of that recommendation, and in the light of their conclusions and the views that have been expressed on the security and other considerations, my right hon. and learned Friend has decided that it would not be appropriate to implement Lord Jellicoe's recommendation, and that in general a more selective use of those cards is to be much preferred. I am sure the House will welcome that because the present system whereby so-called "carding" takes place at Heathrow only in emergencies, but at Gatwick and most other airports the whole time, and at seaports on a selective basis, is a source of considerable irritation and annoyance to travellers.
The draft order that is before the House seeks to continue the Act in exactly its present form for the next 12 months. There is provision in the Act for certain sections only to be renewed and for parts of the Act to be allowed to lapse: and I have no doubt that we shall hear later this evening not only criticism of the Act as a whole and opposition to its continuation, but criticism of particular powers in the Act. I emphasise once again that we draw no satisfaction from the continuance in force, over 10 years after its original introduction, of this emergency legislation. But only 12 months have elapsed since there was the fullest debate and the most painstaking consideration of every line of the legislation. And it is simply too soon, after St. James's square and Brighton, too soon, after a year of tension and terrorism in so many countries of the world, to contemplate any change that might dangerously diminish the ability of the forces of law and order to protect us all against the terrorist menace. We have consulted the police in England and Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland: they are unanimous in their response that the Prevention of Terrorism Act is an essential weapon in their constant struggle against terrorism. The Government are determined to give them the support they need.

Sir John Page: Does my hon. and learned Friend feel that the new initiative in the Council of Europe on terrorism is helpful, and will improve co-operation in the different countries of the Council of Europe?

Mr. Waddington: Of course, it must be helpful for countries to get together and to face together the terrorist threat. There can be no doubt about that.
I ask the House for its support for the renewal of the Act. It is support that I know will not be given lightly and will not be given by any of us without regrets. But it is support that I believe must be given as an unequivocal demonstration of our commitment to this long, thankless, but vital struggle against terrorism.

Mr. Clive Soley: In this debate, as in previous debates on Northern Ireland when I was a spokesman on Northern Ireland for the Labour party, our hearts and thoughts go out to those whose lives have been lost or torn apart by acts of violence. I therefore gladly

associate myself with the Minister's remarks about the Brighton bombing and other acts of terrorism that have been carried out primarily by para-military groups in Northern Ireland but also by other groups around the world. There is universal agreement in the House on that point.
I have a minor gripe, although it has major implications for the way in which we conduct these debates. Last year in the other place, Lord Elton gave the commitment that the report by Sir Cyril Philips would be available early enough to enable the House of Lords to consider amendments. We presumed that that commitment extended to this House. The letter sent to the Minister by Sir Cyril Philips shows that that was the intention. We have had too short a time to enable hon. Members to consider the details of Sir Cyril Philips' report and to propose amendments. We have had only two days to look at the report, and I hope that the Minister will take that point on board in relation to next year.
I shall put some questions to the Minister arising out of Lord Jellicoe's review in 1983 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. The Minister may not be able to give the answers tonight, but if he can, well and good. If he cannot, I look forward to receiving the answers later.
Lord Jellicoe recommended that section 11, which deals with the withholding of information, should be used only when it was suspected that information was being withheld which could, if revealed, prevent acts of terrorism or lead to the apprehension of terrorist offenders. I understand that that is not mentioned in Home Office circular 26/84, but I should like the Minister to give his opinion.
The powers under section 13 apply to immigration and Customs officers. It is not clear whether that main circular has been sent to those officers. I have the impression that that has not happened, although the document provides guidance on the use of the general powers.
Lord Jellicoe recommended that Ministers should take an active part in ascertaining how far the specific purposes for which an extension was granted have been achieved and should satisfy themselves that people are not detained under the Act for longer than is necessary. To what extent has that recommendation been implemented?
I draw the Minister's attention to the case that went before the European Commission on Human Rights. The commission rejected the Government's argument that the men had not exhausted domestic remedies and accepted the claimants' contention that there is no domestic remedy for violations of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from Prevention of Terrorism Act offences. This is a serious matter with legal implications.
The House should take this Act extremely seriously. I always regret the fact that it comes on for consideration late at night and for a relatively short debate. I shall attempt to take up as little time as possible, but I wish to reiterate some important items.
We all understand the circumstances in which the Act was originally passed. The 1974 pub bombings provided an emotive backdrop.
We must address ourselves to four primary questions. First, does the Act, on the best judgment available, prevent terrorism? Secondly, are the acknowledged—everyone acknowledges them — infringements of civil liberty too great to justify the continuation of this Act in a democracy? Thirdly, is the Act in danger of becoming


permanent? Fourthly — this question is extremely important—does the Act seriously alienate sections of the community so as to make it counter-productive?
Having lived with the Act for 10 years, and having examined in considerable detail and depth the figures available to us, the Labour party's answer is, first, that there is little, if any, evidence to suggest that it prevents terrorism. The Minister said that many people think that the Act is necessary. Sadly, no one has spelt out why he thinks it is necessary. Secondly, the infringement of civil liberties—especially in view of what I said a moment ago—is too great for a democracy to accept. Thirdly, the Act is in danger of becoming permanent. Fourthly, it is a serious alienation of many people in Britain and Northern Ireland and is, therefore, counter-productive.
I acknowledge, as I know the Minister acknowledges, that whether the Act prevents terrorism is a matter of judgment—we cannot know. What we do know is that the convictions under the Act for terrorism are few in number, and many of them are not serious enough to attract long prison sentences. Indeed, only a few people receive long prison sentences. We must balance the advantage of putting away people who may be a danger with the disadvantage of the alienation that it causes.
The figures that I shall use are up to and including 1984, and have been drawn from both Home Office figures and figures supplied by the Irish Information Partnership, to which I am indebted for the detailed analysis that it has carried out over a long period. In Britain 5,949 people have been detained; for the United Kingdom as a whole — including Northern Ireland — the figure is 10,309. People charged under the Act in Britain number 152, with 22 in Northern Ireland, bringing the total to 174. Convictions in Britain—not only of offences under the Act, but resulting from people being held and then charged either under the Act or under other Acts—total 348.
From those figures it is hard to argue that the Act is preventing terrorism. Of the convictions in Britain—the United Kingdom figures are not available—42 per cent. were charged under the Act for failure to co-operate. I emphasise that because, if it were not for the Act, that would not be an offence in Britain. Every lawyer of any standing acknowledges that failure to co-operate is anathema to anyone who believes in the democratic system and the rule of law. It has always been something that British lawyers have resisted mightily, as have lawyers in other democratic countries.
Does the Act prevent by deterrence? That is the other argument that must be addressed by the Government and others.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): Is the hon. Gentleman for or against the Act?

Mr. Soley: I am making it clear that the Opposition are against the Act. We have consistently voted against it and will continue to do so.

Mr. Tebbit: Shame.

Mr. Soley: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman takes that view. I understand his feelings and those of many other people. However, I would not have taken the interest that I have taken over the years in Northern Ireland

affairs if it was not for my horror at the violence resulting from the problems there. No one —but no one — will take away from me the right not only to feel deeply about that, but to follow through those feelings into rational, political arguments that are designed to clear up the problems which are causing us so many nightmares, and which in particular have caused so many nightmares for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Renewing the Act tonight will save lives.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman mutters and shakes his head, but there are many problems because of this Act. It has added to the number of people who are prepared to support the primary para-military groups in Northern Ireland. I shall give the hon. Gentleman evidence to back that if he will only contain himself and listen to the argument instead of flying off the handle and assuming that he knows the answer to these difficult problems when, in fact, he has only attended the House for occasional aspects of the debates on Northern Ireland and terrorism.
The other argument is that of deterrence. There is very little evidence that the Act works as a deterrent. The sentences which follow a normal conviction for murder, attempted murder and conspiracy to cause explosions would continue to exist without this Act. If those sentences do not deter, there is overwhelming evidence that the convictions and sentences arising from this Act would be no greater a deterrent than the one which already exists — unless we are arguing that random arrest and detention is itself a primary deterrent.
If that is what we are saying, two things follow. First, we must recognise that we are using random arrest, detention and questioning as a way of obtaining information. Secondly, we must recognise that this method of doing so alienates so many people that it acts as a recruiting sergeant major for the para-military groups in Ireland.

Mr. Waddington: It is quite obvious what the feeling is on the Conservative Benches. It is quite outrageous to talk about random arrests. The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee which studied this Bill, and he knows perfectly well that there is no question of random arrests.

Mr. Robert Parry: My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is correct. It drives innocent people into para-military organisations. Over the Christmas holiday, two seamen sailing from Dublin to Liverpool, who had obviously had a drink too many, gave false names. In fact, one said that he was Mickey Mouse. The police detained them throughout the Christmas holiday, and the Home Secretary allowed these innocent people to be detained for seven days. The Government are driving such people into para-military organisations.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is right, and I intend to give further evidence.
Before I do, I should like to make my position clear. I have been involved in these debates since about 1980 when I first began to get involved. This is the first time that we have had such outbursts from Conservative Members. I understand their strength of feeling following Brighton, but I ask them to understand the strength of feeling which got me involved in the politics of Northern Ireland because of the violence and what it was doing to


our democracy. If Conservative Members do not understand that, I am sorry. If they are now behaving in this way because of Brighton, whereas previously they did not—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) would keep quiet and think for a moment, he would not get into such a state. If Conservative Members are doing so, the para-military organisations in Northern Ireland which conduct these atrocious acts will gain courage and advantage from it.
We have a duty to everyone—to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to the many people in Britain and Ireland who have lost their lives and who have had their families torn apart. We owe it to them to engage in a rational, careful and caring analysis. If Conservative Members do not think I am doing so, that is fine, but they should listen to the arguments and put forward the alternatives. They should not take off and get agitated, as if emotion alone will solve this problem. If emotion could solve the problems of Northern Ireland, we would have solved them years ago.
Are civil liberties being infringed too much? I am troubled about the wording of the Act. As I said time and again in Committee, the exclusion order is, in fact, internal exile. We must acknowledge that. The purpose of the Act is the collection of information. We should also acknowledge that. It enables the authorities to pick up people whom they have reason to believe have Irish connections. It allows the authorities to question them, particularly those who have had contacts with other people known to the security services. By doing so, it allows the authorities to paint a picture of the lifestyle of the people in whom they are interested, not of the ones whom they have picked up.
I shall return to the alienation involved in that, as it is an important part of the argument. In normal circumstances we would be appalled by the power to detain a person for up to seven days, in many cases without contact. Regarding abuse, I ask the Minister to read the article by Joe Sim in the New Statesman of 22 February 1985, to cut down my remarks and save time. I could give many examples and the Minister also knows of many, otherwise he would not have made his comments about the infringement of civil liberties. He must take that on board.
We are arguing that the ordinary law should be and is sufficient. It is in danger of becoming permanent. Although it is written into the Act that it will expire after five years—that was a good inovation—in Committee the word "temporary" was to be dropped. Only the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and supported by the Labour party reinserted "temporary". The Act has been on the statute book for 10 years. The level of violence in Northern Ireland is the lowest for 14 years—we take pleasure in any small mercy. How much longer will we keep the Act on the statute book? From the Minister's remarks about overseas terrorism, it sounds as though he thinks that the Act must become permanent to deal with overseas groups. Until the last two years, no one ever said that the Act was necessary for that. We have always accepted that the conventional law combined with the powers of immigration officers through the Minister were sufficient to deal with overseas terrorism. No one who considers the matter could come to a different conclusion.
The alienation factor is crucial, and I wish to address my remarks to it carefully. The philosophy of terrorism is

to try to force Governments to take extreme action which alienates those groups which the para-militaries seek to represent. R. Moss in "Urban Guerilla Warfare" said:
From its original role of keeping the peace between the Catholic and Protestant communities, the British Army moved over to an offensive intended to root out the IRA as a fighting force. Although the new tactics produced military results, they helped to polarize opinion in Ulster and enabled Catholic critics to represent the army as a repressive force. In this sense, IRA terrorism succeeded. It led to a situation where the British Army, which began as the referee between the two communities in Ulster, appeared as a party to the quarrel. The chaos it engendered helped to postpone the application of social reforms designed to get to the root of the problem and thus eroded Catholic faith in solutions within the existing framework.
Many people are unaware of a booklet which has filtered through the para-military groups throughout the world, including the Provisional IRA. It is Carlos Marighella's "Minimanual of the Urban Guerilla." In many ways it is a shocking document, but Conservative Members should read it. He states that a Government have no alternative except to intensify repression because of a para-military group. He states:
The police networks, house searches, arrests of innocent people and of suspects, closing off streets, make life in the city unbearable … The people refuse to collaborate with the authorities, and the general sentiment is that the government is unjust, incapable of solving problems".
Those thoughts are not academic, but real. They have been a strand of para-military thinking for hundreds of years, but have been more explicitly put during the past 30 years.
Sir Cyril Philips, among many others, recognises the problem when in his report he says:
There is too the practical consideration that in containing terrorism the police need is not only special powers but also the support of the public. It is therefore vital that the use of such powers should not alienate any section of the law-abiding population in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
I shall give an example of the way in which that can work. Incidentally, I welcome the Minister's comments on the carding system. To demonstrate what has been going wrong, I shall quote paragraph 37, which states:
In one police force area where total carding is undertaken it is also the practice to follow up the information contained on each card by visiting persons with an apparent Irish connection, and asking them to complete a form containing full details of families and friends. The purpose is apparently to obviate the need for further checks when anyone so listed travels. In the force area in question the total number of people affected is small. This practice seems to me objectionable because it uses controls as a matter of routine surveillance which are intended principally to assist in identifying suspected terrorists who are entering or leaving the country.
That is an example of the way in which the Act goes badly wrong and alientates many people whose co-operation and support we seek. The Federation of Irish Societies, which speaks for many Irish people and people of Irish descent in this country, says that a lot of people see it as discriminatory against Irish citizens, and as divisive and threatening with respect to the Irish community. But, above all, in Britain, 5,482 people were released without charge out of a total detained of 5,949. That represents 92 per cent. of those detained. Conservative Members should bear in mind that it is not just those who are released and who are acknowledged to be innocent who are alienated, but above all their families and friends. Hon. Members should also bear in mind that alientation can take several forms. First, as I know from the evidence, it can lead people to tolerate or to give passive support to the para-militaries. People are also frightened to co-operate with the police.
When I first became involved in Ireland, people said that it was because there were many Irish voters in my constituency. I am sure that many of my constituents have Irish links, but it is a singularly unpopular issue to be involved in generally, because many Irish people say, "Whatever you do, don't bring the problem over here." When I question them further as to their worries, I find that they are worried either about the para-militaries or about being picked up and questioned by the security forces. They frequently quote the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Although one may need to ask the right questions to discover that anxiety and fear, it becomes clear very quickly. Alienation can also lead to covering-up for para-militaries. I know that that has been happening in Northern Ireland. Most importantly, some people become willing to join, and actively support para-military groups.
It is our contention that that judgment outweighs any other judgment on the other side, that the Act's existence prevents terrorism. Thus, on rational grounds, and on an analysis of the facts available, we say that the Act has not succeeded in its primary purpose, and that there is overwhelming evidence to support that view. There is little evidence to support the opposite view, but I should be happy to hear it. This Act, along with the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act — where we do not recommend immediate repeal, as that is not possible, although we recommend major changes to it—form the pinnacle of the anti civil rights legislation that we have allowed to creep on to the statute book over the years.
We must all bear our responsibilities in that regard. We have allowed that to happen, not least because we have failed to respond properly to the problems of Ireland, and to British-Irish relationships during the past 50 or 60 years. We have a great duty in that regard, and our failing has been visited upon the lives of many people outside the House. That is another reason for saying with absolute conviction that my feelings about this issue are as deep and honourable as those of any Conservative Member who so foolishly and, I believe, wrongly thinks that to vote against the Act is in some way to vote for terrorism.
Old-established democracies are rarely lost overnight. There is a slow erosion of civil rights and then comes a crisis, whether economic, military, mass unemployment or hyperinflation, and people wake up to find that the civil rights that defended them no longer exist. This House, more than any other parliamentary assembly in the world, has that reputation to live up to. We have not lived up to it. Britain is an old-established democracy which has gone dangerously far down the road that I have described. It is not too late to turn back, and in doing that we should not be putting lives at risk. Indeed, we might be beginning to grasp the political problems that we have failed to address in the past.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Minister said that the events of the past year have illustrated the value of the Act, especially section 12, which the Home Secretary introduced to deal with international terrorism. The Home Secretary accepted the advice of Lord Jellicoe, who wisely concluded that the relationships between various terrorist organisations required action to provide counter-terrorist forces with sufficiently flexible powers to

eradicate terrorism and terrorist criminality from the United Kingdom and to enable the United Kingdom to play a significant part in what the Home Secretary called "close co-operation" with other countries. That close co-operation has varied from country to country, and there is considerable room for improvement.
Section 10 gives the Government powers to cope with the vast sums of money at the disposal of terrorist organisations and mentions
acts of terrorism connected with Northern Irish affairs".
I am struck by the role of the individual in section 10. The onus seems to be put on the bank manager of a comparatively small country branch of a bank. I wonder whether international financing of international terrorism and of Irish terrorism are different and whether section 10 needs to be strengthened to prevent the transfer of large sums from country to country and from one major bank to another within the United Kingdom.
I am sure that, in the aftermath of the Brighton bombing, even the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) agrees that we need the Act. In justification of the original Act, which the Labour Government introduced in 1976, he said—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that his words are relevant today:
the necessity of protecting the law-abiding majority of Irish citizens living here by demonstrating that the tiny minority of terrorists who lived amongst them would be weeded out and treated with no mercy."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 61.]
On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman referred to the origins of the Act which was introduced by a Labour Government of which he was a member and said that it seemed right at the time, and perhaps it was right at the time. We do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman still holds that view.

Mr. Soley: My right hon. Friend adopts a very fair position upon it. He voted against it last time and he will do so again tonight. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) must recognise that this argument is about learning from the experience of the last 10 years. The problem is that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to learn.

Mr. Molyneaux: It would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook wishes to repudiate his own words. What should have led him to believe that terrorists should not be weeded out and treated with no mercy? What has happened in the intervening 10 years to persuade the right hon. Gentleman otherwise?

Mr. Soley: Unusually for the right hon. Gentleman, he is being grossly unfair. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has made his view absolutely clear. He believes, as I do, that acts of terrorism are to be condemned. We should like to catch and lock up those who commit acts of terrorism, but it does not mean that my right hon. Friend has got to vote for this Act, for all the reasons I have given. If my right hon. Friend did not share this view with me, he would not have asked me to be the spokesman against it.

Mr. Molyneaux: The absence of the right hon. Gentleman may be significant, but it is not for me to interpret his absence. I am sure that the law-abiding Irish community who were referred to in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman felt in no less need of reassurance in the


days immediately following the Brighton bombing. We on these Benches are filled with admiration for the two Front Bench colleagues of the Minister who have not permitted their injuries and their grief and suffering to stand in the way of their duties to this House. Equally I am sure that the thousands of Roman Catholics in the City of Armagh this very week accept the necessity to weed out terrorists and to treat them without mercy when they re-live the horror of last Sunday when one of their own faith was gunned down on the steps of their cathedral — and perhaps also the horror of today when a community policeman in the same county was gunned down by the IRA.
It is in the intervals of comparative and relative calm between such atrocities that society is at its most vulnerable. It is then that the resolve that terrorists should be weeded out and treated with no mercy is weakened. I know that in the House tonight there are hon. Members who would object to the words "treated with no mercy", but, given the vile nature of terrorists, who would say that every attempt should not be made to ensure that at least they are weeded out?
The Act which we are renewing tonight is the weeder. In agriculture, as in horticulture, a careful weeder will always do his best to ensure that the minimum degree of disturbance is caused to fruitful plants. So this Act, in its modified form, has proved its effectiveness in weeding out. Any slight disturbance or irritation caused to law-abiding people either on this side of the Irish Sea or on the other is very small indeed compared to the horrific death and suffering which the weeds would cause if they were left to sprawl unchecked over the entire community. I know that some will demand proof that murder and mutilation have been prevented by the workings of the Act, but as one who has himself been frequently inconvenienced and seriously delayed by the exercise of the provisions of this Act I can only say that I shall willingly tolerate all of that if there is even the possibility that one human body will not end up as bloody pulp in a plastic bag.
Successive Governments over the past nine years have taken the view that the retention of the legislation is necessary as long as a substantial terrorist threat remains, to use the words of Lord Jellicoe. For those who take a different view, and who mistakenly believe that the legislation feeds terrorism, I have some words of encouragement.
In September 1983 I said that the security situation could look very different in 12 months' time, provided that terrorists were deprived of the hope of attainment of their objective of a united Ireland. For years, terrorists were not deprived of that hope, because successive Governments kept repeating the declaration that a united Ireland would not be achieved by violence. That suited the terrorists very well. for as long as people in Northern Ireland were to be deprived of the right of self-determination decades in advance of the time when they might willingly consent to a change, there was every incentive for the IRA to secure for itself a dominant place in the new order. I had to wait more than 12 months for terrorists to be deprived of that hope, for it took 15 months for the Prime Minister to transmit the signal for which we had hoped and which the IRA dreaded.
When the Prime Minister, on 19 November 1984, rejected the three options designed to override the free choice of the people of Northern Ireland, she made it very

clear that the principle of self-determination would prevail over both murder and political intrigue alike. In plain terms, the shared objective would not be achieved by either method.
On 19 November and on subsequent days we were warned and we were told that Republicans would be outraged, that alienation would be increased, and that Ireland North and South, would be convulsed in a bloodbath the like of which had not been predicted since the then hon. Member for Belfast, West — now Lord Fitt —warned us that when the Labour Government decided to provide Northern Ireland with equal and fair representation in this House, there would be a similar outbreak of violence. But in both cases the opposite occurred.
In the recent case, after about 10 days of ritual huffing and puffing, until about the beginning of last December, a surprising calm set in in Northern Ireland. Far from being apart, the two sides of the Northern Ireland community began to come together and to co-operate in all sorts of ways. I know that I am excluding the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), because he has clearly decided to go on an alternative course. Bearing in mind the company that he is proposing to keep, I can only say "Good luck" to him.
The general attitude was and still is, "Well, now we know. There is not going to be a change so we might as well get down to making the best of it together." One can imagine the impact of that grass roots philosophy on the self-styled army council of the Provisional IRA. Now it, too, knows that the objective is not going to be achieved by anybody.
No one in his right mind would venture to predict when murderers will stop murdering, in this nation or in any other land, but of one thing we can be certain. The stability created by the Prime Minister's unambiguous declaration makes life very hard indeed for thugs, for normality is their greatest obstacle, and it is slowly dawning on them and on their fellow travellers that although they can kill and be killed, that which they regard as the prize is now set far beyond their reach. Provided that this time they are deprived of a rescue brigade in the form of a weakening of Parliament's resolve, or a let-up in the pressure upon the terrorist organisations, I think that all of us on each side of the House can look forward to the time when this now essential legislation can be set aside.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Sir Winston Churchill described this as the terrible 20th century, and as far as the closing years of the century is concerned it seems to be a terrorist century. The debate has been dominated by Irish terrorism, but of course the IRA and the INLA are part of an international mafia of terror. Groups in different countries have widely varying ideologies but they do jobs for each other and they minister to each other's needs in terms of arms, explosives and training.
So I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Sir J. Page) intervened in the Minister's speech to emphasise the need for closer European and wider international co-operation. This order is concerned with the situation in the United Kingdom, and we need this order. We need, unfortunately, in this exceptional situation, exceptional methods and measures.
I was very glad to hear the opening words of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), expressing his abhorrence of terrorism. If we will the end of safety of life


and limb and property, we must be prepared to will the means. I cannot share the sympathy that has been expressed tonight—not for the first time—with one who ended up in confinement, having given a false name and failed to give any co-operation to the police. I am very sorry that he missed his Christmas, but other people died at Christmas.
Of course, this kind of legislation is repugnant, and I assure the hon. Member for Hammersmith that it is repugnant to Government Members too. Nor does the House in general deal with this kind of legislation lightly. It seems that we are constantly reviewing and renewing this legislation. We are jealous of civil liberties, but without life what is liberty?
This Prevention of Terrorism Act, as the Minister said, has been scrutinised and reviewed. I only regret that I have not yet had the time or opportunity to study fully the report of Sir Cyril Philips. It has been well pointed out by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) that this legislation is not the product of a Conservative Administration.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: It is Jenkins' legislation.

Sir J. Biggs-Davison: Exactly—I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is the product of a Labour Home Secretary, and the fact that he is now a member of the Social Democratic party is beside the point. This is a measure that then carried the support of all sides of the House. It was introduced by a Labour Home Secretary. His judgment then was sound. The views of chief officers of police were then taken, and those views have not changed. We would be very foolish indeed to disregard those opinions.
The question of carding has been mentioned in this debate by more than one hon. Member. It was the only part of the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith with which I agree. This does arouse resentment among the Irish and other people. It is important not to alienate those whose support, sympathy and co-operation is needed. But all Irishmen are not as he describes them. Unfortunately the IRA is organised in this island. I have been in pubs where there have been collections for the IRA. It is against the law. Therefore it is necessary sometimes for some Irish people to be troubled.
The great thing is that relations between Irish people and British people in this island are so good. Despite the atrocities that occur, there is no revulsion against Irish people as a whole. But there are some Irishmen who, unfortunately, must receive the attention of the police. My answer to the resentment that is caused by carding is that there should be identity cards for all, without discrimination. Some of us raised this issue when we were debating personation in Northern Ireland elections. We took the view that it was a way of dealing with that problem. This is the way to deal with so many problems. I should be grateful if Home Office and Northern Ireland Ministers would give some consideration to our suggestions from time to time.
I shall draw my remarks to an end, as time is short. I thought that the hon. Member for Hammersmith was not as charming this evening as he usually is. He seemed to be reading us a sermon. He was a bit patronising and prissy this evening. Some of us have been studying Northern

Ireland affairs for some years. Some of us have even studied the sacred books on guerrilla warfare which he mentioned, such as the works of Marighella, Che Guevara, Mao and the rest. Some of us have engaged in a little study of these matters.
The speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith and the decision of the Opposition to divide the House on the motion cause me much regret. I believe in constitutional government and a responsible, loyal Opposition. That is the basis of our democracy. What the hon. Gentleman has said and what the Opposition propose this evening are further proof that the Labour party has abandoned the path of responsible opposition and the role of alternative government.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate must end at half-past eleven and many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in it. I ask the House to follow the excellent example of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison).

Mr. Martin Flannery: Despite the brief speech of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), I am sure that we have all noted that once again the serious problem that is before us is being debated late at night. The debate is too brief and too late. We are not able to deal adequately with the issue. It is clear that there are profound differences between us, and that is why there will be a Division. Those who are new to these debates will, I am sure, agree with me that it is easy in this place to air our prejudices. I hope that they will appreciate that to do so has an impact in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we should be careful about what we say.
The renewal of the 1984 Act was not expected until March, and it is unfortunate that the debate is taking place today, 21 February. Many Irish associations, individuals and organisations had decided to lobby the House in March but — [Interruption.] It is obvious that Conservative Members think that it is wrong to lobby the House. They do not really understand the serious problem that we are facing. They should appreciate that people have a right to come to this place to talk to Members about their feelings and about what is happening. The Irish community on the mainland has about 750,000 members. It includes those whose connections with Ireland are not those of individuals such as myself, whose families have been here for over 100 years. It includes those who have come hear from Ireland in recent years. The Federation of Irish Societies has profound feelings against the Act and Conservative Members should understand that. It feels that it bears down on them in a terrible way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that none of us wants anyone to be terrorised and hurt. At the same time, we want it to be understood that there are two sides to the debate. There are honourable differences and it does not pay anyone to laugh as though such feelings did not exist and the subject was not serious. We believe that the Act is misplaced and that the ordinary criminal law could deal with the problems that face us.
I understand that the Philips report is now available. I did not know that, and it appeared that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) did not either.
Many of us would have appreciated the chance to read the report prior to the debate. That was one of the reasons that caused me to think that it should have taken place at the normal time.
It is less than a year since the new Act came into force. The Federation of Irish Societies has sent documentation to all my hon. Friends and to me; I do not know whether it sent any to Conservative Members. It is the largest and most representative Irish organisation in Britain. It feels deeply about the legislation. It is worth considering why; it gives us some insight into what the Irish people here think about the Act.
We all deplore the killing and bombing that have gone on. None the less, we have to reach some kind of unity to try to solve this terrible problem. The Federation of Irish Societies believes that the Act is unnecessary and discriminatory, is divisive and threatening towards the Irish community and Irish citizens in this country, curtails civil liberties and is a constraint on legitimate political expression and activity. If the Act remains on the statute book, the federation would like some changes in it. Its requests embody its fears about what it thinks is wrong with the Act. It requests:
That detainees be given immediate access to legal advice.
They do not have that. The federation also says that the Irish embassy should be notified when one of its citizens is arrested. It requests:
That relatives of detainees be immediately informed of arrest and location of the detainee.
That detainees should not be held for more than 48 hours without being brought before a Court or a Justice of the Peace sitting in camera.
Another request which most of us should agree with is:
That detainees not charged be compensated for 'social injury' defined as loss of reputation, loss of occupation/employment, domestic disturbance and community stigma …
That detained persons should have all rights and privileges generally afforded to unconvicted persons who are detained under the normal law.
The federation wants the ordinary judges rules to apply, and the withdrawal of the power to stop travellers at random without reasonable suspicion. All those requests are reasonable. They come from people who are fearful. They feel that they have been driven into an impasse because of this Act.

Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the most damning statistics in the Philips report is that more than 70 per cent. of the people who were arrested and detained under the Act were never charged? In other words, the Act is being used as a system of repression against innocent people.

Mr. Parry: I fully agree with the points that my hon. Friend has made on behalf of the Federation of Irish Societies. Does he also agree that when innocent people have been detained and then released without charges being made any fingerprints that have been taken by the police should be destroyed?

Mr. Flannery: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. By the way, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) says that the percentage he gave should have been 80, not 70.
The present Act has so consolidated the provisions of the previous legislation that it seems that we accept that the position will remain the same for ever. Effectively this exceptional law enlarges the circle of people whose civil liberties and legitimate political activities are constrained and threatened.
I was a member of the Committee which considered the 1984 Act. Labour Members fought strenously not only against the whole Bill but against the widening of the provisions. Arrest and detention powers were extended to cover international terrorism. I do not believe in the links that have been mentioned in the debate. When people are giving bombs to other people, they do not necessarily share the same ideals. Often they are opposed. There are no direct organisational links; there may be sporadic links.
The draconian powers of the Act hang like the sword of Damocles over the Irish community in this country. We, like Conservative Members, will fight tooth and nail to prevent bombs from exploding in the community because they harm all of us.
However, at any fixed moment, those of us in the Labour party who are deeply involved—and have been for years—are always trying to handle cases of people suddenly arrested without charge. My hon. Friends, wherever they may be, know about names such as Maire O'Shea, about all sorts of people who are being arrested and whose relatives get in contact with us asking us to do something. When we are in the process of doing it, those people are released, probably with a stigma. New names then come to us. That is going on all the time, as my hon. Friends would tell the House. People are taken from their homes and letters from relatives arrive asking us to deal with that. We hear of cases in Northern Ireland when people are killed by plastic bullets. All come to us to ask us to try to do something about it as best we can.
Innocent and orderly people are treated as criminals and then released without charge, with no compensation, but with a lingering stigma. They are shocked and terrorised and wonder what in heaven's name is happening to them in what must appear to them to be a nightmare of 1984 proportions.
One could develop that theme, but I should like to conclude by talking a little politics because there is an idea that the whole thing is hopeless. Most of us in the Chamber have debated the Act and its draconian sister, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, until a curious bond seems to exist between us. It is a strange thing, and I have tried to analyse it, and failed. I have often tried. But one thing is sure. We are permeated by its main components of intractability and sheer hopelessness. I have said over and over again that the sense of hopelessness proceeds from the fact that all that we talk about is security, and we never discuss what is the cause of the terrible problem that we all face together. That is why the Emergency Provisions Act and this Act will go on for ever if we do not discuss the root cause of why that is happening.
There is among us a dangerous acceptance of the permanency of the situation. We accept one another's position, and the two sides never discuss the politics of the situation except separately. The words "political initiative" have become dirty words instead of something that we want to do. There seems to be no meeting point at all. I cannot accept that, as I cannot accept this unjust Act. The emergency has gone on longer, much longer than both world wars put together, and the Boer war thrown in. Are we so powerless that we are all accepting defeat? I do not accept defeat, and meanwhile the situation that we have created between us inevitably spawns more violence. 
I believe that ultimately the Unionists will have to accept their essential Irishness and be part of a united Ireland. The only way that the Emergency Provisions and the Prevention of Terrorism Acts will be unnecessary will


be in a democratic and united Ireland living in peace and friendship with its neighbour, Britain. Some time, some day, we shall have to sit down and talk together. The British and Irish people are tired of an enduring slaughter that appears to be endless. They will ultimately demand that we do something. Our prejudicies are too luxurious and expensive. We shall have to act in unison for peace, and we shall not do so by passing the extension of the Act every year, as well as of the Acts kindred to it.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am as concerned about and as interested in the interests of individuals and their civil rights as anybody else in the House. I spend part of my time, or much of my life, as a barrister in the criminal courts, defending various people. But I equally believe that internaional terrorism is one of the major concerns that this country faces today, whether it comes from the acts in Northern Ireland or acts in the middle east.
I should like to make it clear what the order which the Opposition announced they propose to oppose again today, does. It does three things. It proscribes certain organisations, gives power to exclude people whom the Home Secretary has reason to believe are involved in terrorist offences and gives power to arrest and to question people whom the police have reason to believe are involved in the commission of criminal offences. Those are minimum powers, which we are justified in taking in defence of our nation and the people of this nation.
As has been said, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill was introduced 10 years ago by a Labour Home Secretary. I do not believe that there have been any changes since then which mean that this legislation is less necessary today than it was 10 years ago. I should have thought that what happened in Brighton and in other parts of the world—with international terrorists wishing to make the streets and cities places to use their bombs to promote their causes—has made it clear to every hon. Member that the Act's limited powers are still necessary. I am satisfied by the assurance of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State that the police have made it clear throughout that they believe that these powers assist them in their fight against terrorism. I am sad that, yet again, the Opposition are choosing to oppose this measure.

Mr. John Hume: I do not intend to discuss the atmosphere that has given rise to terrorism and violence. If I were to do so, I would have harsh things to say about the House and its neglect over a long period in upholding democratic principles in Northern Ireland.
The Minister rightly said that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 represents a considerable infringement of civil liberties, and I welcome his recognition of that fact. The Home Secretary who introduced this measure described it as draconian. In that case one would expect that the Government would welcome serious questioning of the Act and that we would have had more time to debate it and more notice of when the debate would take place. What we have been given as a review of the Act during the past 12 months is an insult to the intelligence of the House. The person who carried out the review did so in only three weeks, according to his

letter to the Home Secretary. He started his examination on 7 February and finished it on 15 February. How could a review of what is described as a considerable infringement of civil liberties be conducted in such a short period? The man who conducted the review did not consult, nor did he invite consultation, with, the responsible organisations which represent the Irish community and which are at the receiving end of this legislation.
The Minister questioned my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) when he talked about random arrests. About 84 per cent. of the people arrested under the Act are not charged with any crime. That is surely evidence that some random arrests are carried out. If people are arrested, that fact becomes publically known. If they are innocent, serious damage is done, even to the point of being made targets for an assassin's bullet. That is why we should seriously consider the operations of the Act.
No notice is required to be given to the relatives of any person arrested under the Act. A person could disappear off the face of the earth for seven days, and no one would know where he was. Under this Act, no one has any responsibility to tell his relatives about his arrest. That is a serious infringement of civil liberties. The simple answer is to create machinery to enable relatives to be informed of where their relations have been detained and to give the arrested person immediate access to a solicitor or other legal advice. What is the objection to doing that?
Frequent complaints have been made about the conditions in which many of these people—the vast majority of them innocent—have been held in custody. The Jellicoe review recommended that because of the Act's "draconian" —I use the review's word—native citizens detained under it should be, and should be seen to be, well treated. Will the Minister examine the conditions under which people have been held?

Mr. Peter Robinson: This debate has become predictable. All too often, I recall the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) lecturing hon. Members—especially those on the Government Benches—on approaching the matter with a cool mind. On a day when a Roman Catholic policeman has been butchered in Northern Ireland, following a weekend when a Roman Catholic prison officer was butchered coming from Mass, it is hard to isolate oneself from the emotions naturally provoked when we discuss terrorism.
As a constituency representative in Northern Ireland, I have lost too many friends and buried too many constituents to be removed from the emotional aspects of the Act. The hon. Gentleman has no difficulty about being passionate about housing, poverty or economics, so it ill becomes him to tell us that we should not be passionate when talking about the lives and deaths of people in this country. It is, rightly, an emotional matter. It is of prime importance to every citizen in this country. I have no doubt where my loyalties should lie—it is with those who could be done to death by acts of terrorism if it were not for the security forces being strengthened by the provisions contained in the Act.
It is the same sort of logic adopted by the party of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), which says that the RUC and the UDR should be disbanded, to leave the field free for the IRA all the easier to carry out its acts of murder


and mayhem. It is the IRA which is most vociferous in its opposition to the Act. Does it not say something about the nature of the Act when the terrorist organisation wants it done away with?
The hon. Member for Hammersmith might say that the Act alienates some sections of the community. The Act does inconvenience many people — it inconveniences me. But, as a citizen who believes that terrorism must be put down, I am prepared to put up with that inconvenience if it helps some to live who might otherwise not live.
It is essential to put on the record the fact that the Minister has made it clear, and the security forces have made it clear, that the need for this legislation is as great as it ever was. When Labour Governments are prepared to take that advice from the security forces, it is strange that this Labour Opposition are not prepared to take that same advice from the same security forces.
There has been a significant act by the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it should be taken into consideration. Any assistance that we can obtain from that Government in the fight against terrorism is to be welcomed. They took speedy action to seize funds that would have been used to buy guns, bullets and bombs in Northern Ireland. It is a step in the right direction, and we obviously look for more from that Government. While the Act is required, it must be supported by all right-thinking people.

Mr. Waddington: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. I hope that hon. Members will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not deal with too many of the detailed points raised in the few minutes remaining to me.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) raised some important points. The Home Office circular to the police includes a careful explanation of the provisions of section 11. There have been no charges under that section since the Act came into force. On section 13, the circular does not go to immigration officers. Although it is rare for them to act as examining officers, nevertheless separate guidance is being prepared for them.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) mentioned the recent events in Ireland and questioned the adequacy of powers to control the movement of terrorist funds. The Government are certainly conscious that events in the Republic earlier this week make it necessary for us to consider our own powers. Section 10 has a far more limited purpose, and is not adequate to deal with the sort of situation which the Government of the Republic dealt with.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) mentioned identity cards. This has been debated on numerous occasions. I can see the force of what he said, but our advice is that it would not be very useful. When identity cards were abolished in 1952, the view of the police then was that they were no longer helpful, and I gather that the view of the police today is no different.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said that there should be immediate access to legal advice for those detained under these powers. Under the present arrangements, access to a solicitor in England and Wales is governed by the provisions of the judges' rules and administrative directions to the police. These apply to those detained under the prevention of terrorism legislation in exactly the same way as to people in custody under other powers.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) highlighted the fact that the police want these powers. That is indeed true.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Waddington: I am sorry, but I must continue as only four minutes remain.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked whether the Act prevented terrorism. Clearly, we cannot prove that five more hotels would have been blown up had this Act not been on the statute book during the last year. We cannot prove that more of our colleagues would have been blown up had this legislation not been in force over the years since 1974. But we can exercise some common sense, as can the vast majority of people in this country.

Mr. Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Waddington: The vast majority recognise that the detention of people, in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are involved in terrorism, and the exclusion of such people is much more likely to protect the community than harm us.
I was also asked whether the Act annoyed and alienated people in Northern Ireland and the Irish community here. Again, let us keep a sense of proportion. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley was right. How can we equate the inconvenience suffered by someone held up at a port, or the hardship of being detained for two or even seven days, with the sufferings of the families of those who have been murdered or the sufferings of two of our right hon. Friends? What would people think if this order was not carried tonight? What sort of message would go out from this House? They would think that we had all taken leave of our senses.
I suspect that the Labour party, by opposing the order, has already taken leave of its senses. This Act's predecessor was passed not just by a former Home Secretary who has since left the Labour party, but by a Labour Government. Until only two or three years ago, the Labour party was content to vote for the continuation of these powers year after year. The powers have not changed, and neither has the need for them. The only thing that has changed is the Labour party. It is now demonstrably composed of people, and is represented on the Opposition Front Bench by people, who are simply not fitted to exercise the power necessary for the protection of the people of this country.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Minister's ridicule of the Labour Oppositon is wholly justified. The powers contained in this order are necessary and should be renewed. Regrettably, the Minister did not rely on the report of Sir Cyril Philips, which gave much greater support to the continuation of the powers than he allowed. All that needs to be said about this is what Sir Cyril Philips said: that the conviction of:
A large number of persons guilty of very serious criminal offences connected with terrorism which in many cases would not and could not have resulted from arrest under other powers
has taken place as a result of the enactment of this Bill last year. The Government must be supported, and in this year of all years, the alliance offers its support to the Government.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Tony Lloyd: (seated and covered.): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the Minister's reply he referred to the judge's rules and, I am sure, unintentionally, claimed in a way which misleads the House that there was no difference between the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and those of normal criminal law. I understand that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act a period of 48 hours elapses before a suspect is given access to a solicitor, and that the interview between the solicitor and the suspect can, at the insistence of the police, be conducted in their presence. That is different from what applies under the ordinary criminal law. If I am correct, can the Minister take steps to advise the House what the exact position is?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter which I can answer. I am sure that the Minister heard what the hon. Member said. If the hon. Member is correct, I am sure that the Minister will communicate with him.

The House having divided: Ayes 145, Noes 35.

Division No. 123]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Robert


Amess, David
Durant, Tony


Ancram, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Tom
Evennett, David


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Favell, Anthony


Batiste, Spencer
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Beggs, Roy
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Benyon, William
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Best, Keith
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Heddle, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Holt, Richard


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bright, Graham
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Brinton, Tim
Kennedy, Charles


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Knox, David


Browne, John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bruinvels, Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Burt, Alistair
Lester, Jim


Butcher, John
Lightbown, David


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Peter


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
McCrindle, Robert


Cash, William
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
McCusker, Harold


Chapman, Sydney
Macfarlane, Neil


Chope, Christopher
MacGregor, John


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Maclean, David John


Conway, Derek
Maclennan, Robert


Coombs, Simon
Major, John


Cope, John
Marlow, Antony


Couchman, James
Mates, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mather, Carol


Dicks, Terry
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dover, Den
Miller, Hal (B'grove)





Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stern, Michael


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Murphy, Christopher
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Needham, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Norris, Steven
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Onslow, Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Viggers, Peter


Paisley, Rev Ian
Waddington, David


Portillo, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Walden, George


Powell, William (Corby)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Powley, John
Waller, Gary


Proctor, K. Harvey
Watson, John


Raffan, Keith
Watts, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Wheeler, John


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Whitney, Raymond


Rowe, Andrew
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Hon Nicholas



Spencer, Derek
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Robin
Mr. Ian Lang and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Nr. Michael Neubert.


Steel, Rt Hon David





NOES


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bermingham, Gerald
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Maynard, Miss Joan


Canavan, Dennis
Mikardo, Ian


Cohen, Harry
Nellist, David


Corbett, Robin
Parry, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pavitt, Laurie


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Prescott, John


Deakins, Eric
Richardson, Ms Jo


Dormand, Jack
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Dubs, Alfred
Skinner, Dennis


Fatchett, Derek
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Soley, Clive


Flannery, Martin



Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Tellers for the Noes:


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mr. John McWilliam and


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Mr. Allen McKay.


Hume, John

Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved.

Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

PETITIONS

Torture

Mr. Harry Cohen: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition to Parliament that supports Amnesty International's Campaign Against Torture. It contains 1,300 signatures, which were collected by Amnesty International's Epping Forest adoption group. It has handed similar petitions to all Members of Parliament in the locality.
The petition states:
To the Honourable The Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled The Humble Petition of the People of the United Kingdom showeth:

1) That we wish to register strong support for Amnesty International's Campaign Against Torture and declare our wish to see torture totally eradicated from the world.
2) That we believe that this end would be significantly advanced if all Governments implemented Amnesty International's 12-point programme for the prevention of torture.

Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urges Her Majesty's Government

1) To support an effective United Nations Convention Against Torture and in particular compensation for torture victims to include anyone who has been the victim of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
2) To support proposals both at the United Nations and at the Council of Europe to create an international commission to make unannounced visits to any place of detention.
3) To intercede whenever and wherever possible on behalf of prisoners being tortured.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
I share the views expressed in the petition and commend it to Parliament.

To lie upon the Table.

Human Embroyos

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition to Parliament on behalf of approximately 250 of my constituents in the Division of Teignbridge. The first signature on the petition is that of the organiser, Mr. Richard Wills, of 18 Gloucester Road, Newton Abbot, Devon.
The petitioners aver that the newly-fertilised human embryo is a real living individual human being, and they therefore welcome the statement in the Warnock report that
the status of the embryo is a matter of fundamental principle which should be enshrined in legislation".
They therefore oppose all such practices that are recommended in the report which discriminate against the embryo or violate its human dignity and right to life. They therefore urge the House to
take immediate steps to enact legislation which forbids any procedure that involves purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment (unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned).
Hon. Members present many petitions. Sometimes we agree with them and sometimes we do not. I support wholeheartedly the sentiments that have motivated the petitioners in this case. They conclude:
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Liverpool

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Terry Fields: The purpose of this debate is to cut through the smokescreen of distortions that give the impression that Liverpool city council is responsible for present circumstances in Liverpool. We must consider the background.
I was born in a dock area before the war. My father was a docker, so I feel qualified to speak on some of the matters on which I hope to enlarge. I remember, as a young person, seeing around the pier head, the goree piazza and the Strand, shackled to the wall, bolts where slaves were tied up in the lucrative trade in human misery. The docks epitomise what is wrong in Liverpool — lack of investment of the profits created by Liverpool people. It is all very well for the Secretary of State for the Environment to talk about us whingeing and whining about our lot, but we are hard working people.
During the war and the national dock labour scheme from 1947 to 1964, my father used to stand in the pen with other dockers like a choice animal, waiting to be picked out for work. My father was proud, and characteristic of the spirit of people in Liverpool. We had dignity and got through decades of struggle. I have never known anything other than bad housing, high unemployment and lack of opportunity for Liverpool people. However, we have learnt lessons. One is that the ravages of the system to which we belong bleeds working people. Indeed, it is responsible for their death.
In 1965, the docks employed 13,589 people. That industry today employs 2,086 — a reduction of more than 80 per cent. There have been corresponding job losses in associated industries and services. There has been no let-up in the de-industrialisation of Liverpool. Between 1971 and 1981 the city lost 90,000, or one quarter, of its jobs. Manufacturing jobs have declined by nearly 40 per cent. and blue collar jobs by 30 per cent. Between 1979 and July 1983, 33,220 redundancies were notified by firms in Liverpool. The catalogue of job losses is endless.
Since 1979, the city has lost one third of its manufacturing jobs and half of the jobs in the city's largest industries—food, drink and tobacco. Between 1975 and 1982, the city council shed 4,400 jobs through natural wastage. The council is now the largest employer on Merseyside, providing socially useful jobs for 31,000 people. It employs one third of all public sector workers in the city. I have a list of 23 industries in which jobs have been lost. They include vehicles, metal goods, coal and petroleum, chemicals, electrical goods, leather goods, clothing and timber.
The latest figure of unemployment on Merseyside—100,000 — is an obscenity when it represents decent people who are eager to work. When they are provided with jobs by the council, they show that they can work.
Housing in Liverpool is believed to be among the worst and yet the most expensive in Europe. There are 22,000 people on the council's waiting list for houses. Urgent repairs are needed to 20,000 council houses. Liverpool has the highest percentage of old, privately rented houses in the country, with the exception of London. Its housing investment allocation has declined, in real terms, from £47 million in 1980 to £28 million in 1984–85. But the real

decline in its housing investment allocation is highlighted by the fact that the city's allocation in 1980 was half that which it received in 1974. Since 1980 Liverpool has lost £63 million in housing subsidy. In 1980 the Government contributed £20 million to the city's housing services. In 1984 if fell to £5·5 million. The catalogue of crimes against the people of Liverpool goes on and on.
When the Labour party took control in Liverpool in 1983 we found that it was not only the public sector that had been decimated. The 10 years of decline in Liverpool under the Tories and the Liberals resulted in the axing of 1,000 local authority jobs, with vacancies in the council's establishment being left unfilled, the abolition of the direct labour organisation and the privatisation of certain services which resulted in job losses. This happened at a time when more, not fewer, jobs were needed in Liverpool. The rates increases since 1979 were used to compensate for Tory cuts in grants. None of that money was used for improvements in Liverpool. Liverpool city council could provide no cushion.
We have come a long way during the 20 months that the Labour party has been in power in Liverpool. We are proud of our achievements. At a time when unemployment is rising nationally, this is no mean feat. The 1983 general election which brought so many Conservative Members to this House has to be set against the Labour victory in Liverpool. It was the Labour party's first victory in Liverpool for 10 or 15 years. That landslide victory was continued in the local authority elections in 1984. Five out of the six Members of Parliament for Liverpool represent the Labour party. For the first time in 120 years there is not one Tory Member of Parliament for Liverpool. It indicates the trust of the people of Liverpool in the Labour party, both nationally and locally. It is proof that a socialist programme is not a liability at either national or local elections, as our opponents would have us believe.
What is even more important is that it has highlighted the political awareness of the people of Liverpool as a result of the experience of having the city run by Liberals and Tories, of having a Tory Government in power and the defections to the Social Democratic party. The turnround in the fortunes of the Labour party has been an inspiration to the city council and to workers in the Labour movement, both nationally and internationally. An opinion poll commissioned by Liverpool University showed that 73 per cent. of Labour voters, 62 per cent. of Liberal voters and even 48 per cent. of Conservative voters felt that the Government were largely to blame for Liverpool's problems.
During the last 20 months Liverpool city council has created 1,000 jobs. It has also prevented 1,000 job losses which had been inherited. It has also boosted employment in the private sector. By 1988, 17,000 jobs will have been created by the council's house-building programme and by its provision of sports facilities. There are 136 apprentices, and 100 sixteen-year-olds are on YTS schemes. Their wages have been topped up to £52 a week and they are guaranteed a job at the end of their training. We are introducing a minimum wage of £100 for local authority workers and a 35 hour week. During the last year 1,057 new houses have been built, and a further 1,211 are to be built in 1984–85. We have provided additional nursery accommodation and reorganised education in order to ensure that every child in Liverpool is provided with the best education that is available.
What is surprising is that with only 30,000 council houses estimated to be built in England and Wales in 1985, over 2,000 of these will be built in Liverpool—that is, one in 15. It is a testimony to the work that the Liverpool city council is doing and will continue to do, despite the opposition of the Government.
We are in a crisis in Liverpool at the moment; we face a financial crisis that is worse than last year's crisis. To balance the books we would require 6,000 redundancies or 220 per cent. rate rises. That is because of the 10 years of Tory and Liberal rule. The Government target of spending is totally unrealistic. The Government impose penalties for spending on essential services, and there is a totally inadequate rate support grant. The Government have reneged on their agreements of last July, when the Secretary of State, having toured the city's black spots, said:
I have never seen housing conditions the like of those I have seen today.
Yet our resources for housing have been cut by 34 per cent.
This year the Tories have set us an arbitrary spending target of £220 million, yet we need to spend £270 million just to defend existing jobs and services. There will have to be a 220 per cent. rate rise or 6,000 jobs will go. Last year the Secretary of State said that it would be impossible to run the city with less than £245 million. With inflation, that would give us this year £255 million. But to maintain that we would have to put up the rates and every time the rates go up money goes off the rate support grant, creating an impossible gap for us to fill.
Since 1979 the Government have withdrawn £320 million from the city in rate support grant, housing improvement programme allocation, housing subsidy, and education grant. What we are saying in Liverpool is that we want that money back; it is as simple as that.
We have shown that our policies are working. Continually the Government chide the Labour Opposition with the question, "What did you do when you were in power?" In Liverpool we are creating jobs, we are building houses, we are building schools, and we are giving a high quality of education to people. In all those respects the Government are doing the opposite. We ask the Government to give us credit for having achieved success in creating jobs and for our services in housing and education. The cost of sacking 6,000 men would be felt by the Government in unemployment pay and lost taxes.
In the Liverpool city centre, 170 of the 680 stores have already shut, more "Closed" signs are going up and, with the rate increases forecast by the Government, more jobs will go in the Liverpool area. In addition to that, we are being threatened by the Government.
The Secretary of State visited Liverpool in 1984. He gave pledges. In a letter to the leader of the Liverpool city council he said:
I can give you an assurance that I will do my very best to ensure your allocations in Liverpool next year under the housing investment programme and the urban programme. Taken together, they will enable the council to make positive progress in dealing with the city's severe needs.
He said that in Liverpool. He came down to London, reneged on his commitment and denied that he had ever made those statements, and he accuses us in Liverpool of violence. In Liverpool there is a concerted campaign, which includes violence to undermine the council. We say to the Liberals that they must share the responsibility,

because they have not been prepared to denounce the violence or to dissociate themselves from those who are perpetrating it.
Having spoken about what he was going to do in Liverpool, the Secretary of State's latest pronouncement, reported in The Times of 19 February, is an indication that he has firm backing from the Cabinet to take direct action if the Liverpool administration is breaking down. We are well used to threats from the Minister, but this is the second time that the Cabinet have discussed the situation in Liverpool. The first time was in 1981, after the Toxteth riots, when the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), said that it took a riot to make the Cabinet take the problems of Liverpool seriously. Given the background and history that we have gone through in Liverpool, is that the only language that the Government understand when talking about the problems of places such as Liverpool?
Perhaps the Secretary of State is envisaging a Molesworth type raid in Liverpool. Perhaps he envisages dressing up in his predecessor's combat jacket. If he comes in the still of the night we shall be ready for him, whenever he comes. Why is he making attacks on us? Why has he launched the so-called investigation into town hall corruption and listed Liverpool as one of the places to be investigated?
Why was that announcement made? Why is he using the Local Government, Planning and Land Act, with threats of commissioners against us? We believe that this is a pre-emptive strike against the Liverpool city council and the Liverpool people. We also saw at the time he made that statement an announcement of concessions to four other local authorities which had been threatened with rate support grant cuts.
We have the support of the people of Liverpool, the trade unions and the people on the estates. We have seen the hypocrisy of this Government in this respect. But Liverpool exemplifies, perhaps in advance of other parts of the country, the processes which are taking place in this country today. The elected representatives of Liverpool will not let the people down. They have been let down too often in the past and they deserve better. We are not going to dirty our hands doing the Tories' butchery of jobs and services in an already ravaged Liverpool. As far as the Government's threats are concerned, it will not be dented shields they will have to deal with, because our shields were forged in preparation for the heat of struggle last year and those preparations are going ahead. The Government thought that we would go into battle then. To quote Mrs. Thatcher's soul mate, "You ain't seen nothing yet". Liverpool's people will not be crushed by this or any other Government.

Mr. Robert Parry: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) on initiating this debate at this late hour. I have deliberately stayed behind to support him. I do not want to repeat the points he has already made because these have been put on record many times in the last couple of years. In fact, during the past six days three hon. Members from Liverpool have raised these matters. Last Friday my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) had the Adjournment debate on the future of the port of Liverpool. Then I raised the question of the Isle of Man-Liverpool crossing, and Monday of this


week I made a Standing Order No. 10 application on the proposed loss of 300 jobs at Guinness, Liverpool. Tonight my hon. Friend has raised the general question of Liverpool.
We are fighting as Labour Members of Parliament for our constituents, our city and our area, and we shall continue to do so. The level of unemployment in Liverpool is merciless and indefensible. My hon. Friend said that more than 90,000 jobs had gone in the last few years. In fact, this Government have hit the jackpot because, with the loss of jobs in Cammell Laird and the Guinness company we have seen over 100,000 jobs go since this Government took office.
I am the Member for Riverside, which has the highest level of male unemployment in the United Kingdom—nearly 40 per cent. across the board. I warned in the late 1970s and the early 1980s about the problems arising in Toxteth and the grave danger of riots and disturbances on our streets. Unfortunately the warning was ignored and I say now that there will be trouble on our streets again unless the Government take action to reduce the massive level of unemployment. I believe that, as my hon. Friend said, this Government have seen nothing compared with what they will see if they allow mass unemployment to continue in city areas. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can give us some hope that we shall see a decrease in this terrible loss of jobs.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): There was a rather telling slip in one of the things that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) said — that opponents regard a full-blooded Socialist programme as an election loser. His opponents on the Government Benches do not regard such a programme as an election loser; they regard it as wrong. The opponents of the hon. Member for Broadgreen are perhaps on the Front Bench on his own side of the House. It was an interesting slip because it showed how little the purpose of the hon. Member's speech was to debate with the Government.
The Government do not deny or dispute the long-term decline and the problems of Liverpool, or those of any other of the older industrial cities of this country. Those cities are no different from the older industrial cities in many other parts of Europe. I was in Bremen recently. We do not often associate declining industrial cities with Germany, but there is 20 per cent. unemployment in Bremen. There is a whole list of cities in Europe whose industries were based in the industrial past and which face the same sort of problems as Liverpool faces.
The debate between the hon. Gentleman and the Government, as opposed to that between himself and the Opposition Front Bench, is about the best response to the problems that are faced by Liverpool. Is the best approach to try to brand the city, through the city council, as one that is famous for municipal irresponsibility, for conflict and for delighting in the prospect of conflict, as we have heard from the hon. Gentleman? Is that the best way to help Liverpool in future? The answer—it comes with a resounding no from the Government—is that that is the worst way of trying to help Liverpool.
The Government have spent massive resources on Merseyside and Liverpool since they came to power. Over

£1 billion a year has been spent by the Government on Merseyside since 1981–82, if all Government programmes are taken into account. If all Government programmes are considered, well over £400 million has been spent in Liverpool this year.
Let us consider housing. The very problems which are so real in Liverpool—the hon. Member has described them and no one will dispute his description—stem from the policies and mistakes, which are now being repeated. The construction of huge municipal housing estates in inhuman styles with no basis for real communities created the problems that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues draw to our attention. They go back over many years.

Mr. Parry: To pre-war years.

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) says, many of the problems may stem from pre-war years. Many of them have come from the great post-war municipal housing boom. The hon. Member for Broadgreen proposes to compound the mistakes of past years by pouring more municipal money into the city in exactly the same way. Why is it that the new Labour city council, since its election, has rejected all the imaginative schemes involving private capital, cooperatives and the ingredients that we have seen so successfully applied in Stockbridge village, Minster court and elsewhere? Those are forward-looking and imaginative schemes, which hold out some hope of finding a way forward. They do not involve a programme that merely redoubles the municipal housing of the past. The policies that the hon. Gentleman is trying to repeat were those that caused many of the problems with which he is allegedly trying to deal.
The Government said last year that within the constraints that would be placed upon them—I refer to the next sentence of the letter of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which the hon. Member for Broadgreen did not quote the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to provide a reasonable urban aid programme and a reasonable allocation for Liverpool would have to come within the general contraints on public expenditure. Within those constraints my right hon. Friend has provided an allocation for 1985–86 for the inner city partnership on Merseyside as a whole of about £24·1 million. Bids for 1985–86 are still being considered but it is likely that Liverpool city council's share will be about the same as last year, about £20 million. Giving the constraints that lie on the Government, that is not a bad record. There are many other cities that are aware of the resources that are being poured into Liverpool and they wonder whether it is worth while. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to spend not his money or Liverpool's money. It behoves him to remember that the money that he wants to spend comes from taxpayers and ratepayers elsewhere in the country.
There has been a wide range of other Government expenditures. I have mentioned some from my own Department but it is worth remembering that there is a huge range of others. The Department of Health and Social Security will spend about £127 million this year on hospital and community health services. The Department of Trade and Industry will spend about £24 million on grants and expenditure on industrial investment. The Manpower Services Commission will spend £42 million.
It is not a lack of Government resources that lies at the heart of Liverpool's problems. The difficulties go back to far deeper structural problems. A problem that has been added unnecessarily to the structural problems is the attitude of the city council. Its policies are almost designed to drive away private investment and to produce conflict and despair.
The hon. Member for Broadgreen referred wrongly to the Secretary of State making threats against Liverpool; he verged upon extraordinary language. What the Secretary of State did recently was merely to remind Liverpool city council, as it needs to be reminded from time to time, of the law on capital allocations. The city council originally spoke of extravagant proposes incapable of being financed. I have information from meetings today that it has drawn back from a programme that could not have been financed and is saying that its programme for this year will be met within the legal allocation. If that is so, it is much to be welcomed, and I hope that it will be matched by a drawing back from any illegality in regard to the setting of the budget. Nothing could be more designed to damage the provision of jobs and investment in Liverpool than the city council taking the city through a whole charade of conflict over the budget such as we had last year.
I think the House had assumed that it heard all it needed to hear on the problems of Liverpool's budget last summer. It might have been assumed that the city council would have learned a lesson from last year's experience. I hope that I am proven to be wrong but it seems that those assumptions could be wrong. We are dealing with a council that does not respect the normal traditions of responsible local government. The council persists in claiming, as the hon. Member for Broadgreen claimed, that Liverpool has lost rate support grant on the assumption that the grant should be fixed for all time at the level of 1979–80. That is plainly nonsense. The suggestion that the city council has been harshly treated is scarcely borne out by the 1985–86 rate support grant settlement. The council's target, at £222 million, is a 2·3 per cent. increase on its 1984–85 adjusted budget. Some authorities have been asked for a 1·5 per cent. cut. The council's grant-related expenditure has risen by £19 million, or 9·6 per cent., to £217 million. This is the third highest GRE for any metropolitan district. The block grant that the council would receive for spending at target has increased by £3

million, or 2·5 per cent., to £118 million. So, if the council operates responsible financial policies, it can draw very substantial support from the taxpayer.
Nevertheless, the council is again threatening not to make a proper rate. I cannot stress too strongly that the consequences for Liverpool will be far worse if the council does that rather than accepts its proper statutory responsibilities. If no rate is made, who will provide the services on which so many depend? Who will pay the council staff? Even if, as last year, the council eventually sees the folly of its threat, the people of Liverpool will have suffered further months of needless anxiety and the reputation of the city will have suffered a further knock.
Let me make the Government's position clear. We do not deny the gravity of Liverpool's problems, but these must be tackled by responsible and legal action rooted in the real world—

Mr. Parry: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: I am not giving way. As the hon. Gentleman will see, I have very little time left.
As I was saying, the problems must be tackled by action rooted in the real world and not in some fantasy world of political rhetoric, where money is alleged to grow on trees and where the law is to be set aside if it suits the council to do so.
The hon. Member for Broadgreen referred to violence. If one wanted to use this great debating Chamber as a way of reaching people and saying a few things to damage Liverpool, one should make the predictions of violence that the hon. Gentleman made tonight. We know, and he knows, that the enormous majority of people in Liverpool would repudiate such attitudes. It is the raising of such scares and the scarcely concealed glee with which the hon. Gentleman spoke of conflict that do such damage to Liverpool.
I have every confidence that the people of Liverpool will have more sense. If they do, they will have done much more for their future than will the overheated and rather trivialising rhetoric we have heard from the hon. Member for Broadgreen.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fifteen minutes past midnight.